Isn't it just wonderful and refreshing to have grown-up, educated adult leadership in the White House now, especially during this swine flu "pandemic"?
The likes of Chimpy McHitler and his evil entourage probably would have gone on national television and stupidly caused an unnecessarily fear-mongering panic by encouraging people to not ride subways and fly on airplanes until this "crisis" is over, whether that be days or months from now, and they would have been (rightly) absolutely crucified by the major media for doing so.
Good job, Mr. Biden. Very good job indeed. It sure is easy for hypocritical government elites who enjoy the unlimited use of taxpayer-funded private jets (and who don't have to associate with the rest of the peasantry on the public transportation that they so ardently push on the likes of us) to come out with such pronouncements; the rest of us unfortunately still have to find a way to get to our jobs in order to fund the current administration's trillion-dollar spending sprees, however.
What's really scary is that this doofus is one heartbeat away from the Presidency, should something happen to the "articulate, bright, clean and nice-looking" Barack Obama.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week...
... collectively is the entire Maywood, California (a suburb of L.A.) Police Department, according to none other than California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who yesterday released the results of a state investigation of that force that covered the years 2001-2007. Brown actually went so far as to label the department an "agency of last resort", hiring incompetents and crooks who couldn't catch on at any real police force.
Here's just some of the hijinks that those good ol' boys ("boys", because there is only one female on the force) were up to:
"Among other abuses, officers with the Maywood Police Department used a Taser on a handcuffed man and his father"
"Several have been placed on administrative leave, Brown said, and one officer was charged with 17 felony counts stemming from the sexual assaults of three women."
"The report said officers seeking trips to Las Vegas and other perks from Maywood Club Tow impounded 17,773 vehicles in Maywood and Cudahy between 2002 and 2007." (Emphasis mine)
Mostly the vehicles of illegal immigrants, according to the story. Even though they are breaking the law by being here, illegals certainly don't deserve to be preyed upon by a thoroughly corrupt police department, one that is supposed to be protecting and serving the public, not profiting from the blatant abuse of their law enforcement powers.
Can you say, "out of control department?"
What's even more surprising is that the nearby city of Cudahy, California actually contracts with these bozos for police service. What, the Crips or Bloods aren't available?
"Brown said he would seek a court order requiring the Police Department to reforms outlined in the report."
Not nearly good enough. This ongoing criminal enterprise should be immediately disbanded (and prosecuted by using the RICO statutes?), and the police powers of every cop in the department revoked. Even if there are officers there who are innocent of these crimes, the fact that they didn't blow the whistle on this unbelievable level of corruption by their colleagues should permanently disqualify them from being cops as well. Let the State Police or LAPD provide policing for the two cities until and if Maywood can get its act together and hire some professional law enforcement personnel. The town can quickly begin this process by immediately bouncing its current police chief, who apparently has no sense of shame:
"'Simply because an allegation or accusation is made does not necessarily mean that it, in fact, happened,' [Chief Frank] Hauptmann said."
We just threw up in our mouths a little bit.
Here's just some of the hijinks that those good ol' boys ("boys", because there is only one female on the force) were up to:
"Among other abuses, officers with the Maywood Police Department used a Taser on a handcuffed man and his father"
"Several have been placed on administrative leave, Brown said, and one officer was charged with 17 felony counts stemming from the sexual assaults of three women."
"The report said officers seeking trips to Las Vegas and other perks from Maywood Club Tow impounded 17,773 vehicles in Maywood and Cudahy between 2002 and 2007." (Emphasis mine)
Mostly the vehicles of illegal immigrants, according to the story. Even though they are breaking the law by being here, illegals certainly don't deserve to be preyed upon by a thoroughly corrupt police department, one that is supposed to be protecting and serving the public, not profiting from the blatant abuse of their law enforcement powers.
Can you say, "out of control department?"
What's even more surprising is that the nearby city of Cudahy, California actually contracts with these bozos for police service. What, the Crips or Bloods aren't available?
"Brown said he would seek a court order requiring the Police Department to reforms outlined in the report."
Not nearly good enough. This ongoing criminal enterprise should be immediately disbanded (and prosecuted by using the RICO statutes?), and the police powers of every cop in the department revoked. Even if there are officers there who are innocent of these crimes, the fact that they didn't blow the whistle on this unbelievable level of corruption by their colleagues should permanently disqualify them from being cops as well. Let the State Police or LAPD provide policing for the two cities until and if Maywood can get its act together and hire some professional law enforcement personnel. The town can quickly begin this process by immediately bouncing its current police chief, who apparently has no sense of shame:
"'Simply because an allegation or accusation is made does not necessarily mean that it, in fact, happened,' [Chief Frank] Hauptmann said."
We just threw up in our mouths a little bit.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
At least two police departments that "get it"
Via the Forum, we found out that a number of people living in or near Jackson, Michigan spent last weekend openly carrying handguns on their hips while going about their business, a practice that is completely legal in that state with a permit.
Contrary to the bleatings of the Brady Campaign whiners who continually decry such actions, no one died, there were no shootouts in the streets and none of the law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights caused any problems whatsoever at the establishments they patronized. In fact, they ended up spending quite a bit of money at one restaurant, pleasing the staff there, as one commenter to the story notes:
"I was at the Bob Evans luncheon from 11am till about 3:30pm (open carrying)and no cops showed up. The manager was more than welcomed to have us. He also asked when we could be back again." (Emphasis mine)
We imagine that was the safest restaurant in the state right about then.
We are pleased and heartened that both the Blackman Township Police Department as well as the Jackson County Sheriff's Department seem to be competent, service-oriented organizations that responded to a few panicked calls from residents unaware of the law quickly and professionally. The officers established that no laws were being broken, wished the firearm carriers a good day and let them go about enjoying their weekend.
"'Sometimes it is a matter of educating the public that this is a constitutional right,' [Blackman Township Public Safety Director Jon] Johnston said. 'We do not take enforcement action against those who obey the law.'"
Just as it should be.
Are you paying attention, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Police Chief Ed Flynn?
"Milwaukee's police chief said he'll go on telling his officers to take down anyone with a firearm despite [Wisconsin Attorney General J. B.] Van Hollen's finding that people can carry guns openly if they do it peacefully.
Chief Ed Flynn said officers can't assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.
He said that means officers seeing anybody carrying a gun will put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide if the person has a right to carry it."
In case you hadn't noticed, Chief Flynn, felons, drug dealers and murderers don't walk around with a handgun in open view. Law-abiding citizens exercising their natural-born, Constitutionally-protected rights do.
Go ahead and keep up that thuggish and unlawful behavior, Chief. Your own Attorney General has specifically informed you that open carry is perfectly legal in Wisconsin. Ignore that advisement at your professional and personal financial peril.
Contrary to the bleatings of the Brady Campaign whiners who continually decry such actions, no one died, there were no shootouts in the streets and none of the law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights caused any problems whatsoever at the establishments they patronized. In fact, they ended up spending quite a bit of money at one restaurant, pleasing the staff there, as one commenter to the story notes:
"I was at the Bob Evans luncheon from 11am till about 3:30pm (open carrying)and no cops showed up. The manager was more than welcomed to have us. He also asked when we could be back again." (Emphasis mine)
We imagine that was the safest restaurant in the state right about then.
We are pleased and heartened that both the Blackman Township Police Department as well as the Jackson County Sheriff's Department seem to be competent, service-oriented organizations that responded to a few panicked calls from residents unaware of the law quickly and professionally. The officers established that no laws were being broken, wished the firearm carriers a good day and let them go about enjoying their weekend.
"'Sometimes it is a matter of educating the public that this is a constitutional right,' [Blackman Township Public Safety Director Jon] Johnston said. 'We do not take enforcement action against those who obey the law.'"
Just as it should be.
Are you paying attention, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Police Chief Ed Flynn?
"Milwaukee's police chief said he'll go on telling his officers to take down anyone with a firearm despite [Wisconsin Attorney General J. B.] Van Hollen's finding that people can carry guns openly if they do it peacefully.
Chief Ed Flynn said officers can't assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.
He said that means officers seeing anybody carrying a gun will put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide if the person has a right to carry it."
In case you hadn't noticed, Chief Flynn, felons, drug dealers and murderers don't walk around with a handgun in open view. Law-abiding citizens exercising their natural-born, Constitutionally-protected rights do.
Go ahead and keep up that thuggish and unlawful behavior, Chief. Your own Attorney General has specifically informed you that open carry is perfectly legal in Wisconsin. Ignore that advisement at your professional and personal financial peril.
Good riddance
It's about time that Senator Arlen Specter (R-at) finally joined his true compatriots over in the Democratic side of the Senate, since that's where he pretty much votes most of the time anyway.
We lost patience with the good politician back in 1999, when he weaselly cited "Scottish law" as a reason to avoid holding Bill Clinton accountable for lying under oath in a deposition in a Federal court case, in a pathetic attempt to play both sides of the aisle.
We'd be just as happy to lose the rest of the RINOs in Congress. At least then we'd be able to begin to rebuild a party that's based on true conservative principles.
We lost patience with the good politician back in 1999, when he weaselly cited "Scottish law" as a reason to avoid holding Bill Clinton accountable for lying under oath in a deposition in a Federal court case, in a pathetic attempt to play both sides of the aisle.
We'd be just as happy to lose the rest of the RINOs in Congress. At least then we'd be able to begin to rebuild a party that's based on true conservative principles.
Where's the "transparency" we keep hearing about?
"The Obama administration, which has boasted about its efforts to make government more transparent, is rolling back rules requiring labor unions and their leaders to report information about their finances and compensation."
The back-roller appears to be one Deborah Greenfield, a former AFL-CIO attorney who filed suit in 2007 on behalf of the union against the more stringent disclosure requirements, and who is now a high-ranking muckety-muck at the Labor Department, apparently as one of the Messiah's payback appointments to organized labor for getting out the vote for him. It's hard to tell if she is actually the responsible party, however, since she is ducking interview requests from the Washington Times about the subject.
"But Labor Department spokeswoman Gloria Della said Secretary Hilda L. Solis 'is committed to strong, fair and balanced enforcement of labor-management reporting laws.' She said the department's move to rescind the expanded LM-2 financial reporting requirements gives the department 'the opportunity to evaluate whether we are taking the best actions toward that goal.'"
How is permitting a union to re-obfuscate its financial information going to accomplish that? That's just like telling a fifth-grader "OK, you no longer have to bring home a detailed report card; give me your overall GPA and I'll get a perfect picture of your accomplishments at school." It just makes no sense, particularly coming from an administration that presents itself as "the most transparent in history".
Right, until it wishes to hide something it wishes to slip by the American people. Then it's about as "transparent" as mud.
The back-roller appears to be one Deborah Greenfield, a former AFL-CIO attorney who filed suit in 2007 on behalf of the union against the more stringent disclosure requirements, and who is now a high-ranking muckety-muck at the Labor Department, apparently as one of the Messiah's payback appointments to organized labor for getting out the vote for him. It's hard to tell if she is actually the responsible party, however, since she is ducking interview requests from the Washington Times about the subject.
"But Labor Department spokeswoman Gloria Della said Secretary Hilda L. Solis 'is committed to strong, fair and balanced enforcement of labor-management reporting laws.' She said the department's move to rescind the expanded LM-2 financial reporting requirements gives the department 'the opportunity to evaluate whether we are taking the best actions toward that goal.'"
How is permitting a union to re-obfuscate its financial information going to accomplish that? That's just like telling a fifth-grader "OK, you no longer have to bring home a detailed report card; give me your overall GPA and I'll get a perfect picture of your accomplishments at school." It just makes no sense, particularly coming from an administration that presents itself as "the most transparent in history".
Right, until it wishes to hide something it wishes to slip by the American people. Then it's about as "transparent" as mud.
A public service announcement
The media's breathless wall-to-wall coverage of the predicted swine flu outbreak has been unnecessarily panicking a number of people, in our opinion.
To keep things in perspective, here's Wired magazine's review of the 1976 swine flu "epidemic":
Total number of fatalities directly attributed to the swine flu: 1
Total number of fatalities directly attributed to the swine flu vaccine that then-President Gerald Ford ordered everyone to submit to in response to that era's hysteria: at least 30, plus hundreds of other diagnosed cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a serious disorder that can cause paralysis.
We believe that the outbreak in Mexico City has reached its current level due to the crushing population density of that overcrowded city of at least 25 million people, and that U.S. cities are not nearly at risk of the same level of contagion.
The currently available flu vaccine confers no protection against the H1N1 virus identified as being the cause of the recent outbreak, although it may (may) contribute to reducing the severity of symptoms should the virus be acquired. The virus appears to be negatively affected by the two available antiviral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza, at least for the time being. The generally available N-95 protective masks have not been proven to be effective at protecting people from infection (the virus particles are smaller than the holes in the material) , unless they are used to help isolate someone with active symptoms in a health-care setting.
People will gain the most benefit from practicing basic good hygiene: washing hands with soap and hot water for at least 30 seconds several times a day, especially after contacting others; keeping their hands away from their mucous membranes (nose, eyes); avoiding others with flu-like symptoms; and consulting their health-care professional should they begin to experience any symptoms such as fever, coughing, lethargy and fatigue, muscle aches and sore throat.
Please keep things in perspective, at least for the time being. We seem to be in no imminent danger.
To keep things in perspective, here's Wired magazine's review of the 1976 swine flu "epidemic":
Total number of fatalities directly attributed to the swine flu: 1
Total number of fatalities directly attributed to the swine flu vaccine that then-President Gerald Ford ordered everyone to submit to in response to that era's hysteria: at least 30, plus hundreds of other diagnosed cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a serious disorder that can cause paralysis.
We believe that the outbreak in Mexico City has reached its current level due to the crushing population density of that overcrowded city of at least 25 million people, and that U.S. cities are not nearly at risk of the same level of contagion.
The currently available flu vaccine confers no protection against the H1N1 virus identified as being the cause of the recent outbreak, although it may (may) contribute to reducing the severity of symptoms should the virus be acquired. The virus appears to be negatively affected by the two available antiviral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza, at least for the time being. The generally available N-95 protective masks have not been proven to be effective at protecting people from infection (the virus particles are smaller than the holes in the material) , unless they are used to help isolate someone with active symptoms in a health-care setting.
People will gain the most benefit from practicing basic good hygiene: washing hands with soap and hot water for at least 30 seconds several times a day, especially after contacting others; keeping their hands away from their mucous membranes (nose, eyes); avoiding others with flu-like symptoms; and consulting their health-care professional should they begin to experience any symptoms such as fever, coughing, lethargy and fatigue, muscle aches and sore throat.
Please keep things in perspective, at least for the time being. We seem to be in no imminent danger.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Oh, for Pete's sake
Senator Harry Reid, (D-emagoguer), is adding a little epilogue to the paperback release of his book "The Good Fight":
"Reid, D-Nev., writes: 'That speech was phenomenal, Barack,' I told him. And I will never forget his response. Without the barest hint of braggadocio or conceit, and with what I would describe as deep humility, he said quietly: 'I have a gift, Harry.'"
More like a "gift" for reading off his ever-present teleprompter, a skill that failed the Messiah today when the words on it weren't scrolling fast enough for him, and he subsequently got a little confused as to exactly whom he was supposed to be thanking at a speech.
Why is it the numerous (admittedly minor) gaffes committed by His Anointedness such as this one never quite seem to end up in the mainstream news, when by comparison every little public mishap by Bush (like the pretzel story or his trying to open the wrong door in China) seemed to dominate the headlines for days?.
This is supposed to be a shining example of someone with no conceit or ego, Mr. Reid?
Please.
"Reid, D-Nev., writes: 'That speech was phenomenal, Barack,' I told him. And I will never forget his response. Without the barest hint of braggadocio or conceit, and with what I would describe as deep humility, he said quietly: 'I have a gift, Harry.'"
More like a "gift" for reading off his ever-present teleprompter, a skill that failed the Messiah today when the words on it weren't scrolling fast enough for him, and he subsequently got a little confused as to exactly whom he was supposed to be thanking at a speech.
Why is it the numerous (admittedly minor) gaffes committed by His Anointedness such as this one never quite seem to end up in the mainstream news, when by comparison every little public mishap by Bush (like the pretzel story or his trying to open the wrong door in China) seemed to dominate the headlines for days?.
This is supposed to be a shining example of someone with no conceit or ego, Mr. Reid?
Please.
A proposal for yet another massive waste of Federal taxpayer funds
New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez (D-Nanny State) wants to take up to 35 million of our hard-earned dollars yearly right out of our pockets in order for the Department of Justice to establish a grant program to "research and educate children about Internet safety" and to combat the phenomenon of "sexting", in which teens send nude or suggestive photos to each other via text message.
Which, of course, ignores the fact that these supposedly "uneducated" and "naive" children are the very ones that are programming their family's computers and cell phones because no one else in the house knows how to do it, and who are living more and more of their normal everyday lives online. These "kids" know exactly what they're doing, which is nothing more than what teens have been doing forever, except that they now have new tools in order to do it with. Good luck with attempting to control those raging teenage hormones, Sen. Menendez. Societies have been trying for millennia without any success. Somehow we think throwing more and more of our tax money at the problem isn't going to solve it, either.
We realize that we at the Muckraker are rapidly getting over the hill in age, but we can dimly remember a program from our youth that taught children how to behave in public (which today includes one's online activities), and it didn't cost a dime. It was known as "parenting", and it seemed to work quite well at preparing the youth of this country to conduct themselves properly.
After seeing some cringe-worthy examples of today's clueless parents (such as the horde of nail-biting nanny-state parents on the"Mommy Files" blog at the San Francisco Chronicle's Web site who are furiously debating each other over what age is proper for their precious little snowflakes to first view the movie Star Wars), we can certainly see how the Feds self-importantly think that they need (and, more importantly, somehow have the right) to take over parenting duties for everyone.
They're wrong, of course. We fail to where the "teaching kids to behave themselves" clause appears in the Constitution.
Which, of course, ignores the fact that these supposedly "uneducated" and "naive" children are the very ones that are programming their family's computers and cell phones because no one else in the house knows how to do it, and who are living more and more of their normal everyday lives online. These "kids" know exactly what they're doing, which is nothing more than what teens have been doing forever, except that they now have new tools in order to do it with. Good luck with attempting to control those raging teenage hormones, Sen. Menendez. Societies have been trying for millennia without any success. Somehow we think throwing more and more of our tax money at the problem isn't going to solve it, either.
We realize that we at the Muckraker are rapidly getting over the hill in age, but we can dimly remember a program from our youth that taught children how to behave in public (which today includes one's online activities), and it didn't cost a dime. It was known as "parenting", and it seemed to work quite well at preparing the youth of this country to conduct themselves properly.
After seeing some cringe-worthy examples of today's clueless parents (such as the horde of nail-biting nanny-state parents on the"Mommy Files" blog at the San Francisco Chronicle's Web site who are furiously debating each other over what age is proper for their precious little snowflakes to first view the movie Star Wars), we can certainly see how the Feds self-importantly think that they need (and, more importantly, somehow have the right) to take over parenting duties for everyone.
They're wrong, of course. We fail to where the "teaching kids to behave themselves" clause appears in the Constitution.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
English cops who are clueless about the laws they're supposed to be enforcing
Here's an interesting video clip from Darren Pollard, an English filmmaker who was doing some yardwork in his garden when he noticed two cops conversing with a teen bicyclist in the street in front of Pollard's house. Pollard retrieves one of his cameras and begins filming the encounter, which was taking place on a public street, from his private property. The two officers notice Pollard recording them and decide to come onto his property uninvited and give him a good harassing for his trouble.
We think it's safe to say that Pollard decidedly wins this battle of intelligence and knowledge of the law. We especially love the look on the male cop's face when his sergeant reports back clearly over his radio that "It's not an offense". Notice, as well, the sullen looks on the faces of the chastised officers as they slink off without a word of apology for trampling all over Pollard's garden as well as his rights.
"Could I have your names, please?"
Excellent show, Mr. Pollard. Keep fighting for your rapidly-disappearing civil liberties over there.
Many, many things are becoming illegal in England these days, but videoing a public street from one's own property isn't yet a crime, at least for now.
Give the martinets who run that asylum awhile, and that may yet change, though.
We think it's safe to say that Pollard decidedly wins this battle of intelligence and knowledge of the law. We especially love the look on the male cop's face when his sergeant reports back clearly over his radio that "It's not an offense". Notice, as well, the sullen looks on the faces of the chastised officers as they slink off without a word of apology for trampling all over Pollard's garden as well as his rights.
"Could I have your names, please?"
Excellent show, Mr. Pollard. Keep fighting for your rapidly-disappearing civil liberties over there.
Many, many things are becoming illegal in England these days, but videoing a public street from one's own property isn't yet a crime, at least for now.
Give the martinets who run that asylum awhile, and that may yet change, though.
A little fact the Brady Campaign would prefer that you didn't know
"Borsch’s impromptu discussion revealed the fact that some 25% of mass murder shooting sprees he has researched were ended by armed private citizens." (Emphasis mine)
Massad Ayoob, reserve police captain, prolific gun author and respected firearms and self-defense instructor, describing the research findings he learned from Ron Borsch of the Southeast Law Enforcement Academy while attending the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association convention.
All the more reason for us to work even harder to reduce the number of "gun-free zones" such as schools, public buildings and other such legislatively designated prime victim areas, the establishment of which only serves to force law-abiding citizens to be sitting ducks when one of these mentally imbalanced or just plain evil people decides to murder them en masse.
(h/t Of Arms & the Law)
Massad Ayoob, reserve police captain, prolific gun author and respected firearms and self-defense instructor, describing the research findings he learned from Ron Borsch of the Southeast Law Enforcement Academy while attending the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association convention.
All the more reason for us to work even harder to reduce the number of "gun-free zones" such as schools, public buildings and other such legislatively designated prime victim areas, the establishment of which only serves to force law-abiding citizens to be sitting ducks when one of these mentally imbalanced or just plain evil people decides to murder them en masse.
(h/t Of Arms & the Law)
Making it up as she goes along
We're a little late on this one, but feel the need to point it out for completeness purposes.
Janet Napolitano, our witless head of Homeland Security, on April 19 demonstrated once again in an interview (on CNN) that she has absolutely no grasp of the immigration laws she is charged with upholding, as pointed out by Michelle Malkin:
"And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well." (Emphasis mine)
Nope. Janet Kirchner of FAIR references the appropriate law, 8 USC 1325 (Why can't Napolitano's people find these little nuggets of fact in the code as well, in order to inform and better prepare their boss for these embarrassing media appearances?):
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
A misdemeanor crime for the first offense, felonies for subsequent attempts. Hardly the "civil infraction" that Napolitano tries to make it out to be.
Janet Napolitano, our witless head of Homeland Security, on April 19 demonstrated once again in an interview (on CNN) that she has absolutely no grasp of the immigration laws she is charged with upholding, as pointed out by Michelle Malkin:
"And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well." (Emphasis mine)
Nope. Janet Kirchner of FAIR references the appropriate law, 8 USC 1325 (Why can't Napolitano's people find these little nuggets of fact in the code as well, in order to inform and better prepare their boss for these embarrassing media appearances?):
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
A misdemeanor crime for the first offense, felonies for subsequent attempts. Hardly the "civil infraction" that Napolitano tries to make it out to be.
"Just go home and walk it off, you'll be fine"
We just can't wait for British-style nationalized health care to be imposed upon us here in America, so that when we present at a government hospital like the one in East Lancashire, England after a fall from a bicycle, we can have a simple X-ray and be diagnosed as having two crushed lumbar vertebrae, and despite standard protocol for such injuries subsequently merely sent home on crutches with pain medication, despite the very real threat of paralysis with such an injury, which is more properly treated with spinal immobilization until the damaged structures can be thoroughly evaluated via MRI or CT to rule out the danger of nerve involvement.
Of course, those exams cost money, which government healthcare bureaucrats are always trying to save more of, regardless of the potential harm to patients. That's presumably why this English man didn't receive the care he should have gotten.
"Days later, Mr. [Peter] Johnson went to his follow-up appointment at Burnley General Hospital's [a different clinic from the original one; the incompetent doctors were at Royal Blackburn Hospital, although there was nothing "royal" about the care Johnson received there] fracture clinic and saw a different consultant who seemed surprised he had been discharged and encouraged to walk." (Emphases mine)
Mr. Johnson is truly fortunate not to have been left a paraplegic by the idiot "specialists" at Royal Blackburn, who of course are still working there, lavishing their negligence and malpractice on yet more unsuspecting British subjects.
On a related subject, we are keeping a close watch on developments concerning the swine flu outbreak announced in the past few days. We are assuming that the Messiah will quickly be using this event in some manner to trash our current health-care system and agitate for this sort of incompetent, lowest-common-denominator nanny-care-for-all plan to be forced down our own throats. After all, as good ol' White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel always cynically says,
"Rule 1: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste; but what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."
It requires scaring the peasants out of their wits in order to fool them into turning over more and more control over their daily lives to our Dear Leader, because otherwise his socialistic proposals would be laughed out of the room.
Of course, those exams cost money, which government healthcare bureaucrats are always trying to save more of, regardless of the potential harm to patients. That's presumably why this English man didn't receive the care he should have gotten.
"Days later, Mr. [Peter] Johnson went to his follow-up appointment at Burnley General Hospital's [a different clinic from the original one; the incompetent doctors were at Royal Blackburn Hospital, although there was nothing "royal" about the care Johnson received there] fracture clinic and saw a different consultant who seemed surprised he had been discharged and encouraged to walk." (Emphases mine)
Mr. Johnson is truly fortunate not to have been left a paraplegic by the idiot "specialists" at Royal Blackburn, who of course are still working there, lavishing their negligence and malpractice on yet more unsuspecting British subjects.
On a related subject, we are keeping a close watch on developments concerning the swine flu outbreak announced in the past few days. We are assuming that the Messiah will quickly be using this event in some manner to trash our current health-care system and agitate for this sort of incompetent, lowest-common-denominator nanny-care-for-all plan to be forced down our own throats. After all, as good ol' White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel always cynically says,
"Rule 1: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste; but what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."
It requires scaring the peasants out of their wits in order to fool them into turning over more and more control over their daily lives to our Dear Leader, because otherwise his socialistic proposals would be laughed out of the room.
Friday, April 24, 2009
"Special" Justice for "special" people
Parma, Ohio Police Captain Kim Cornachio has pled no-contest to a disorderly conduct charge, stemming from a road-rage incident in which the off-duty cop sucker-punched a seventeen-year-old boy, leaving the kid with a black eye.
"Officer" Cornachio was fined a scant $150 bybrutality enabler Judge Mark Hassett. Unbelievably, this is the only punishment that this thug seems to have received for his unprovoked assault on the teen driver, as there is no mention in the story of departmental discipline against Cornachio, which usually means that there wasn't any.
"The teen's mother said she wanted Cornachio charged with assault, a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,500 fine. She accused prosecutors of minimizing the charge and going easy on a law enforcement officer. She called it blatant favoritism." (Emphasis mine)
I'd call it favoritism as well (along with a few more choice words, had that been my son that was attacked by Cornachio). As Jeffrey Quick notes, Judge Hassett should try sucker-punching a cop in the eye and see what he gets charged with. It won't be disorderly conduct, we can guarantee that.
The cop getting punched can even be off-duty, out of uniform and the aggressor in the incident and one will still catch felony charges, as that is exactly what happened to Martin Treptow of Coon Rapids, Minnesota after he defended himself and his family by shooting a road-raging Landen Beard, a similarly out-of-control off-duty Robbinsdale, Minnesota police officer who had all subsequent charges against him dropped despite a pile of evidence (including eyewitnesses) that points directly to Beard as the instigator of the traffic incident, not Treptow (Treptow's case is pending, and we are following it closely).
"Cornachio, 55, of Auburn, denied striking the teen but admitted to halting Zahn."
"Halting" the kid's eye with your fist doesn't count, sir.
"The 25-year police veteran said he acted because he witnessed Zahn driving erratically."
A motor offense "Officer" Cornachio knows a little something about:
"Cornachio has a history of problems while in the driver's seat. The Plain Dealer reported in 2002 that he had been involved in 11 crashes -- and found to be at fault in eight -- since joining Parma police. Twice, a police review board recommended he take defensive-driving courses."
"How many wrecks can a cop be responsible for and still keep his job at the Parma PD?"
More than eight, it seems.
Sadly, we now have to also ask "How many citizens can a cop brutally assault out of the blue and still keep his job at the Parma PD?
Even more sadly, more than one, it seems.
"Officer" Cornachio was fined a scant $150 by
"The teen's mother said she wanted Cornachio charged with assault, a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,500 fine. She accused prosecutors of minimizing the charge and going easy on a law enforcement officer. She called it blatant favoritism." (Emphasis mine)
I'd call it favoritism as well (along with a few more choice words, had that been my son that was attacked by Cornachio). As Jeffrey Quick notes, Judge Hassett should try sucker-punching a cop in the eye and see what he gets charged with. It won't be disorderly conduct, we can guarantee that.
The cop getting punched can even be off-duty, out of uniform and the aggressor in the incident and one will still catch felony charges, as that is exactly what happened to Martin Treptow of Coon Rapids, Minnesota after he defended himself and his family by shooting a road-raging Landen Beard, a similarly out-of-control off-duty Robbinsdale, Minnesota police officer who had all subsequent charges against him dropped despite a pile of evidence (including eyewitnesses) that points directly to Beard as the instigator of the traffic incident, not Treptow (Treptow's case is pending, and we are following it closely).
"Cornachio, 55, of Auburn, denied striking the teen but admitted to halting Zahn."
"Halting" the kid's eye with your fist doesn't count, sir.
"The 25-year police veteran said he acted because he witnessed Zahn driving erratically."
A motor offense "Officer" Cornachio knows a little something about:
"Cornachio has a history of problems while in the driver's seat. The Plain Dealer reported in 2002 that he had been involved in 11 crashes -- and found to be at fault in eight -- since joining Parma police. Twice, a police review board recommended he take defensive-driving courses."
"How many wrecks can a cop be responsible for and still keep his job at the Parma PD?"
More than eight, it seems.
Sadly, we now have to also ask "How many citizens can a cop brutally assault out of the blue and still keep his job at the Parma PD?
Even more sadly, more than one, it seems.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Losing the zip code lottery
Yorkshire, England resident Lesley Fletcher has been diagnosed with myopic macular degeneration, an eye disease that leads to certain blindness if left untreated.
Fortunately, a drug named Lucentis is available to treat the condition.
Unfortunately for Ms. Fletcher, she lives in the wrong zip code to receive that drug. Her local "National" Health Service Trust is declining to pay for her medicine, even though it is routinely paid for by trusts across the rest of Britain.
"Ms Fletcher was told by her consultant that although her home address is in West Yorkshire she actually came under the jurisdiction of North Yorkshire Primary Care Trust. Had she lived just two miles further into West Yorkshire it is likely she would have received funding for her treatment."
What kind of horrifying governmental insanity is that?
(By the way, the doctor who prescribed the medicine and Fletcher's own wish to stay among the sighted are left completely out of the equation, you will notice.)
The reason for her claim being denied by the local trust that purports to "serve" the area she happens to live in? Some pinhead bureaucrat (a drone who most likely has no medical background and is charged solely to reduce costs as much as possible) has apparently arbitrarily decided one of two things: either the drug is too expensive or that Ms. Fletcher is somehow less deserving of her sight-saving treatment than someone else in the trust is of their care, despite the fact that Ms Fletcher has dutifully paid into the fraudulent scheme her entire working life:
'"I’ve worked full-time since 15. I’ve never been out of work – even when I had my children – and now I work hard for the NHS. But it seems as soon as you need something back they let you down.'"
Ms. Fletcher further (correctly) points out that she is only 55 years old, and that should she be forced to quit working due to becoming blind, the cost of lifetime disability benefits for her would surpass the cost of the drug treatment in a matter of weeks. That doesn't seem to matter, though. What the government says goes over there, despite the utter ludicrousness of the situation.
This sad story encapsulates what will routinely happen on a large scale in this country, should the Messiah manage to ram through his dream scheme for health "care" for "all" Americans.
Are you prepared to deal with a similar maddening situation when it happens to yourself and your family?
Fortunately, a drug named Lucentis is available to treat the condition.
Unfortunately for Ms. Fletcher, she lives in the wrong zip code to receive that drug. Her local "National" Health Service Trust is declining to pay for her medicine, even though it is routinely paid for by trusts across the rest of Britain.
"Ms Fletcher was told by her consultant that although her home address is in West Yorkshire she actually came under the jurisdiction of North Yorkshire Primary Care Trust. Had she lived just two miles further into West Yorkshire it is likely she would have received funding for her treatment."
What kind of horrifying governmental insanity is that?
(By the way, the doctor who prescribed the medicine and Fletcher's own wish to stay among the sighted are left completely out of the equation, you will notice.)
The reason for her claim being denied by the local trust that purports to "serve" the area she happens to live in? Some pinhead bureaucrat (a drone who most likely has no medical background and is charged solely to reduce costs as much as possible) has apparently arbitrarily decided one of two things: either the drug is too expensive or that Ms. Fletcher is somehow less deserving of her sight-saving treatment than someone else in the trust is of their care, despite the fact that Ms Fletcher has dutifully paid into the fraudulent scheme her entire working life:
'"I’ve worked full-time since 15. I’ve never been out of work – even when I had my children – and now I work hard for the NHS. But it seems as soon as you need something back they let you down.'"
Ms. Fletcher further (correctly) points out that she is only 55 years old, and that should she be forced to quit working due to becoming blind, the cost of lifetime disability benefits for her would surpass the cost of the drug treatment in a matter of weeks. That doesn't seem to matter, though. What the government says goes over there, despite the utter ludicrousness of the situation.
This sad story encapsulates what will routinely happen on a large scale in this country, should the Messiah manage to ram through his dream scheme for health "care" for "all" Americans.
Are you prepared to deal with a similar maddening situation when it happens to yourself and your family?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Subjected to brutality for asserting his rights
Presented without comment, as Pastor Anderson's vivid recounting of his ordeal makes any further analysis by us quite unnecessary:
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Erie PD update
Via Eriepressible, we find that James Cousins II, the Erie, Pennsylvania cop seen worldwide on Youtube drunkenly spouting off about various aspects of his job that he finds amusing, including mocking the grieving mother of a homicide victim, has been suspended for ten days without pay, and will additionally "be required to complete alcohol counseling and a fitness-for-duty evaluation."
That seems to sound about right to us, judging from the behavior depicted on the video.
Of greater interest to us here at the Muckraker is the news regarding James DeDionisio, the worm of an Internal Affairs investigator for the Erie PD (and today's Jack-Booted Thug of the Week honoree) who allegedly attempted to intimidate the brother of the photographer by threatening him and his family with Federal wiretapping charges if they didn't somehow convince their photog sibling to remove the embarrassing but otherwise perfectly legal video from YouTube:
"In addition, Erie Mayor Joe Sinnott announced that internal-affairs Inspector James DeDionisio will be reassigned. DeDionisio led the investigation into Cousins' behavior."
So much for Sinnott's loud claim last Friday about good ol' "Jimmy D"'s stellar investigative techniques:
"Sinnott said DeDionisio had acted appropriately.
'I know Jimmy D and his practices very well,' Sinnott said. 'He's very professional and he does everything by the book. I haven't seen anything here that changes that.'"
Sinnott has finally seen the "something" that changes his former opinion of DeDionisio, we assume.
We look forward to finding out what discipline is ultimately levied against Officer DeDionisio, as well as Police Chief Steve Franklin, for having the central roles in the department's heavy-handed draconian attempt to quash someone's free speech rights in a vain attempt to suppress publicly filmed footage that happened to embarrass one of their employees.
That seems to sound about right to us, judging from the behavior depicted on the video.
Of greater interest to us here at the Muckraker is the news regarding James DeDionisio, the worm of an Internal Affairs investigator for the Erie PD (and today's Jack-Booted Thug of the Week honoree) who allegedly attempted to intimidate the brother of the photographer by threatening him and his family with Federal wiretapping charges if they didn't somehow convince their photog sibling to remove the embarrassing but otherwise perfectly legal video from YouTube:
"In addition, Erie Mayor Joe Sinnott announced that internal-affairs Inspector James DeDionisio will be reassigned. DeDionisio led the investigation into Cousins' behavior."
So much for Sinnott's loud claim last Friday about good ol' "Jimmy D"'s stellar investigative techniques:
"Sinnott said DeDionisio had acted appropriately.
'I know Jimmy D and his practices very well,' Sinnott said. 'He's very professional and he does everything by the book. I haven't seen anything here that changes that.'"
Sinnott has finally seen the "something" that changes his former opinion of DeDionisio, we assume.
We look forward to finding out what discipline is ultimately levied against Officer DeDionisio, as well as Police Chief Steve Franklin, for having the central roles in the department's heavy-handed draconian attempt to quash someone's free speech rights in a vain attempt to suppress publicly filmed footage that happened to embarrass one of their employees.
Another hollow "anchor baby" argument
Maria Ruis (it never fails to amaze us how illegal immigrants are so willing to go on the public record with their full names) shares with us, via the Arizona Republic, just why she feels that she and her 1-year-old daughter are entitled to remain in the U.S. illegally:
"Ruis, a restaurant manager and a housekeeper, said the United States is the only place where Gracie, who has Down syndrome, can receive proper medical care.
"Ruis, a restaurant manager and a housekeeper, said the United States is the only place where Gracie, who has Down syndrome, can receive proper medical care.
'We're not asking for anything for free. We work and we pay taxes here. This is my seventh year paying taxes here,' Ruis said. 'We're not all bad.'"
While we sympathize and our hearts go out to anyone with a disabled child, we highly doubt that America is the only place in the entire world where people with Down's syndrome can receive the care appropriate to their needs, having seen many people with the same condition living happy, productive lives in our travels around the globe. Is Ruis now arguing that the U.S. must seek out and accept any person from around the world along with their family, simply because they share her child's affliction?
For a country with a supposedly "broken" health care system, we sure do have a tsunami of people trying to get here to take advantage of it. Providing mandated emergency health care for illegal aliens, many of whom are unlike what Ruis claims to be and don't pay any sort of taxes, is but one of the reasons why insurance premiums for law-abiding citizens are so high. As lucky and wealthy as our nation is, we simply can't provide the entire world population with adequate health care. At some point, the other nations are just going to have to step up and provide quality services of their own.
Even if her statement about not being able to find health care for her daughter somewhere else happened to be factual, Ms. Ruis was here illegally for at least six years before her daughter was born, according to her own statement. This revelation certainly tends to undercut her stated reasons for being allowed to remain in the country, by showing that she had no intention of returning home even before her child was conceived and born.
You certainly aren't a "bad" person, Ms. Ruis. You're just flagrantly breaking our immigration laws, and attempting to justify your continued presence by pointing to circumstances resulting from your own actions that occurred after you arrived here.
Sorry, we're not buying. Anchor babies, even disabled ones, should not be used as unwitting pawns by cynical illegal aliens to come up with some kind of justification to avoid being deported back to their home country.
The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week...
... is Erie, Pennsylvania Police Department Internal Affairs Inspector James DeDionisio, for "leaning" (to be more polite than the investigator deserves) on the brother of a vacationing Australian man who happened to take a cell-phone video of off-duty Erie police officer James Cousins II apparently doing some drunk-bragging in a bar about some cases he worked, including mocking the mother of a homicide victim:
Pretty low-class and boorish, but we've seen much worse. After all, how much is really true, and how much is booze-soaked puffery? Officer Cousins is free to talk about whatever he wants while off-duty, so long as secret or personal information isn't revealed. Embarrassing, but certainly nothing that broke any laws.
The real crime, in our opinion, occurred once the Erie PD found out about the existence of the video on the Internet. The brother of the photographer (who has since returned to Australia) claims (and a coworker confirms) that he was visited at his work site by Internal Affairs investigator DeDionisio (along with Cousins, who was in full uniform and driving a marked cruiser. No try at a little intimidation there, no sirree.), who proceeded to threaten the man with Federal wiretapping charges if he didn't find a rapid way to get his brother to take down the video from YouTube:
"The man who was questioned Tuesday said DeDionisio told him police had consulted with the Erie County District Attorney's Office about pursuing a federal wiretapping case against the source of the video."
Except, of course, that the district attorney vehemently denies being consulted, and emphatically states that he wouldn't even consider filing any such charges, considering Cousins was spouting off in a public place, and thus had no reasonable expectation of privacy:
"District Attorney Brad Foulk, who has decried Cousins' behavior on the video, said he never advised police on the case and would never agree to such a probe.
'That is absolutely preposterous. I would never consider charging this person with a wiretap violation,' Foulk said Thursday."
The Erie police chief, Steve Franklin, doesn't exactly have clean hands here either, so he comes in second in this week's JBTotW voting. His office apparently contacted YouTube directly to attempt to get the video pulled down from the site, which the company properly refused to do, since the owner of the video had not made such a request and the video does not portray illegal or immoral acts.
If that action wasn't bad enough, Franklin also dispatched one of his bobos to ask Foulk to get a court order to get the video taken down, a request that the DA also rightly immediately shot down.
All of this seems to boil down to Chief Franklin and Inspector DeDionisio not having the slightest clue about how internal investigations are supposed to work, since they seem much more interested in finding out who actually shot the video and getting them to please, please take it down by any means necessary than they are in "investigating" Cousins' statements on the tape:
"Franklin said finding out why the video was shot is important to the investigation into Cousins' behavior." (Emphasis mine)
I can answer that, Chief. Your officer was making an idiot out of himself in front of a tourist, who decided to record the moment out of a sense of disbelief and outrage. Perfectly legal, and it might be a valuable lesson to your other officers about keeping a semblance of professional decorum while not on the job.
"'I needed to determine if that person was the person who posted it,' DeDionisio said Thursday. 'We would like to have it removed from the site even if we were doing the investigation because it was done without his knowledge.'"
So freakin' what? We're recorded without our knowledge in public places multiple times a day, and so are millions of other peasants. We don't have officially dispatched attack dogs to go shake down the recorders if we're caught making an ass out of ourselves, though, and Officer Cousins shouldn't have that option, either. We also like to have banana split sundaes delivered to our door every night at ten p.m. sharp, but we don't get that either, Inspector DeDionisio. Somehow we've learned to live with it.
Here's the laugh-out-loud funniest line in the whole story:
"'It leaves a lot of questions unanswered why you'd film someone apparently intoxicated in a bar, and not only film it but send it to YouTube for posting,' he said. 'It's out of the ordinary to go up and film someone and send it to YouTube, of all places.'"
Chief Franklin has obviously never even been to YouTube, since seemingly most of the videos there comprise just that sort of subject matter.
Officer Cousins has been suspended with pay for the duration of the "investigation", although the case can certainly be made that out of the three men, he has done the least to be disciplined about, unlike DeDionisio and Franklin, who have blatantly abused their police powers to attempt to cover up Cousins' embarrassing rant, and while doing so have instead made the situation many, many times worse for themselves and their department.
After all, it's never the crime, but the official coverup that usually sinks an administration. You'd think that government administrators would have learned that lesson by now.
Pretty low-class and boorish, but we've seen much worse. After all, how much is really true, and how much is booze-soaked puffery? Officer Cousins is free to talk about whatever he wants while off-duty, so long as secret or personal information isn't revealed. Embarrassing, but certainly nothing that broke any laws.
The real crime, in our opinion, occurred once the Erie PD found out about the existence of the video on the Internet. The brother of the photographer (who has since returned to Australia) claims (and a coworker confirms) that he was visited at his work site by Internal Affairs investigator DeDionisio (along with Cousins, who was in full uniform and driving a marked cruiser. No try at a little intimidation there, no sirree.), who proceeded to threaten the man with Federal wiretapping charges if he didn't find a rapid way to get his brother to take down the video from YouTube:
"The man who was questioned Tuesday said DeDionisio told him police had consulted with the Erie County District Attorney's Office about pursuing a federal wiretapping case against the source of the video."
Except, of course, that the district attorney vehemently denies being consulted, and emphatically states that he wouldn't even consider filing any such charges, considering Cousins was spouting off in a public place, and thus had no reasonable expectation of privacy:
"District Attorney Brad Foulk, who has decried Cousins' behavior on the video, said he never advised police on the case and would never agree to such a probe.
'That is absolutely preposterous. I would never consider charging this person with a wiretap violation,' Foulk said Thursday."
The Erie police chief, Steve Franklin, doesn't exactly have clean hands here either, so he comes in second in this week's JBTotW voting. His office apparently contacted YouTube directly to attempt to get the video pulled down from the site, which the company properly refused to do, since the owner of the video had not made such a request and the video does not portray illegal or immoral acts.
If that action wasn't bad enough, Franklin also dispatched one of his bobos to ask Foulk to get a court order to get the video taken down, a request that the DA also rightly immediately shot down.
All of this seems to boil down to Chief Franklin and Inspector DeDionisio not having the slightest clue about how internal investigations are supposed to work, since they seem much more interested in finding out who actually shot the video and getting them to please, please take it down by any means necessary than they are in "investigating" Cousins' statements on the tape:
"Franklin said finding out why the video was shot is important to the investigation into Cousins' behavior." (Emphasis mine)
I can answer that, Chief. Your officer was making an idiot out of himself in front of a tourist, who decided to record the moment out of a sense of disbelief and outrage. Perfectly legal, and it might be a valuable lesson to your other officers about keeping a semblance of professional decorum while not on the job.
"'I needed to determine if that person was the person who posted it,' DeDionisio said Thursday. 'We would like to have it removed from the site even if we were doing the investigation because it was done without his knowledge.'"
So freakin' what? We're recorded without our knowledge in public places multiple times a day, and so are millions of other peasants. We don't have officially dispatched attack dogs to go shake down the recorders if we're caught making an ass out of ourselves, though, and Officer Cousins shouldn't have that option, either. We also like to have banana split sundaes delivered to our door every night at ten p.m. sharp, but we don't get that either, Inspector DeDionisio. Somehow we've learned to live with it.
Here's the laugh-out-loud funniest line in the whole story:
"'It leaves a lot of questions unanswered why you'd film someone apparently intoxicated in a bar, and not only film it but send it to YouTube for posting,' he said. 'It's out of the ordinary to go up and film someone and send it to YouTube, of all places.'"
Chief Franklin has obviously never even been to YouTube, since seemingly most of the videos there comprise just that sort of subject matter.
Officer Cousins has been suspended with pay for the duration of the "investigation", although the case can certainly be made that out of the three men, he has done the least to be disciplined about, unlike DeDionisio and Franklin, who have blatantly abused their police powers to attempt to cover up Cousins' embarrassing rant, and while doing so have instead made the situation many, many times worse for themselves and their department.
After all, it's never the crime, but the official coverup that usually sinks an administration. You'd think that government administrators would have learned that lesson by now.
Monday, April 20, 2009
You go first, dear
In a dramatic example of high-born inbreeding gone amok, a haughty baroness in England named Warnock who is touted as a "government medical ethics expert" has announced that lowly British peasants afflicted with dementia have a duty to die, as they are nothing more than a wasteful burden on precious National Health Service assets that could be put to far better use somewhere else:
"She said: 'If you are demented you are wasting people’s lives, your family’s lives and you are wasting the resources of the NHS.'"
Just take the drones out back and put a bullet in their head now that they have outlived their usefulness, eh, dearie?
Your compassion for your subjects underwhelms us.
In countries that have nationalized health care "schemes", it always happens that when such care is given away for "free", it must then be rationed by government bureaucrats to make sure there's enough to go around (however thinly it must be spread), except if one happens to be royalty or a "special person", apparently. Is everyone ready for such draconian measures to be applied to their own loved ones in this country? Maybe our Messianic benevolent government overlords who wish to implement a similar farce of a system here could simply implant jewels in our palms that would flash when they believe our time is up, just like the scenario portrayed in the movie Logan's Run.
Baroness Warnock is 84 years old, and presumably getting fairly decrepit physically (and mentally, judging by her asinine pronouncement). Perhaps she should follow her own advice and preemptively remove herself from society, in a patriotic move to free up some valuable "resources" for others who are actually contributing something worthwhile to her nation.
(Billy link)
"She said: 'If you are demented you are wasting people’s lives, your family’s lives and you are wasting the resources of the NHS.'"
Just take the drones out back and put a bullet in their head now that they have outlived their usefulness, eh, dearie?
Your compassion for your subjects underwhelms us.
In countries that have nationalized health care "schemes", it always happens that when such care is given away for "free", it must then be rationed by government bureaucrats to make sure there's enough to go around (however thinly it must be spread), except if one happens to be royalty or a "special person", apparently. Is everyone ready for such draconian measures to be applied to their own loved ones in this country? Maybe our Messianic benevolent government overlords who wish to implement a similar farce of a system here could simply implant jewels in our palms that would flash when they believe our time is up, just like the scenario portrayed in the movie Logan's Run.
Baroness Warnock is 84 years old, and presumably getting fairly decrepit physically (and mentally, judging by her asinine pronouncement). Perhaps she should follow her own advice and preemptively remove herself from society, in a patriotic move to free up some valuable "resources" for others who are actually contributing something worthwhile to her nation.
(Billy link)
A mayor with morals
Warren, Michigan Mayor Jim Fouts was stopped for going slightly over the speed limit in his own town while he was driving to City Hall, and the officer let him off with a warning. Mayor Fouts, after thinking things over, subsequently called up the police department and asked to be ticketed for the offense, and the deputy police commissioner obliged.
"Fouts told The Detroit News that he 'had to set an example.'"
Outstanding, sir. I'm sure the town's residents very much appreciate your avoiding even the hint of favoritism, especially since no one probably would have ever been the wiser about the incident had you not asked to be ticketed.
Mayor Fouts almost certainly didn't mean for this to happen, but that $100 fine has certainly bought him a mountain of respect and goodwill for his display of leading by example, and deservedly so. That's the kind of person we need in office as our public servant - someone who realizes that regardless of their title, they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
Warren residents who violate the town's speed limit now officially have no excuse for not paying up. Grin and dig deep, just like your honest mayor did.
"Fouts told The Detroit News that he 'had to set an example.'"
Outstanding, sir. I'm sure the town's residents very much appreciate your avoiding even the hint of favoritism, especially since no one probably would have ever been the wiser about the incident had you not asked to be ticketed.
Mayor Fouts almost certainly didn't mean for this to happen, but that $100 fine has certainly bought him a mountain of respect and goodwill for his display of leading by example, and deservedly so. That's the kind of person we need in office as our public servant - someone who realizes that regardless of their title, they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
Warren residents who violate the town's speed limit now officially have no excuse for not paying up. Grin and dig deep, just like your honest mayor did.
They're doing it wrong
Two men were shot to death at an anti-gun event in supposedly "gun-free" London, England, and the shooter wasn't the only one packing heat, according to prosecutors:
"An alleged double killer, his accomplice and one of his victims were all carrying firearms at an anti-gun event in London, the Old Bailey heard today."
This unfortunate incident sadly illustrates all too well the lack of success that strict gun control achieves in disarming the criminal element of a country, and how the such a ban leaves law-abiding citizens to be sitting ducks for the armed thugs, who don't care a whit about whether guns are banned or not.
Oh, and about the concept of swift justice? Nay nay, as comedian John Pinette would say. This crime happened in December 2002, and the bewigged court functionaries over there are only now getting around to trying the alleged perpetrator, seven years later (during which time the suspect's alleged accomplice was killed in yet another unrelated shooting incident, by the way).
That draconian gun ban is really working out well for Britain's peasants, isn't it? Perhaps U.S. Attorney General Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder should peek at the results England is getting before attempting to duplicate many aspects of their ban in our country.
"An alleged double killer, his accomplice and one of his victims were all carrying firearms at an anti-gun event in London, the Old Bailey heard today."
This unfortunate incident sadly illustrates all too well the lack of success that strict gun control achieves in disarming the criminal element of a country, and how the such a ban leaves law-abiding citizens to be sitting ducks for the armed thugs, who don't care a whit about whether guns are banned or not.
Oh, and about the concept of swift justice? Nay nay, as comedian John Pinette would say. This crime happened in December 2002, and the bewigged court functionaries over there are only now getting around to trying the alleged perpetrator, seven years later (during which time the suspect's alleged accomplice was killed in yet another unrelated shooting incident, by the way).
That draconian gun ban is really working out well for Britain's peasants, isn't it? Perhaps U.S. Attorney General Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder should peek at the results England is getting before attempting to duplicate many aspects of their ban in our country.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
He doesn't deserve freedom
Actor Jackie Chan displays the servile mindset that permits over a billion Chinese citizens to remain under the yoke of an oppressive Communist government, lorded over by the iron fists of a select few ruthless old men:
"'I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not,' Chan said. 'I'm really confused now. If you're too free, you're like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic.'
Funny, I don't remember Mr. Chan having to ask permission from China's premier before embarking on his career path. Why should anyone else have to do the same?
"'I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not,' Chan said. 'I'm really confused now. If you're too free, you're like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic.'
Chan added: 'I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want.'"
Like become an internationally famous (and wealthy) action movie star, as Chan apparently wanted to do with his life. It's not a problem in Chan's mind for him to be a big success in the free world while simultaneously helping to repress and beat down the equally-valid dreams and aspirations of his fellow countrymen, it seems.Funny, I don't remember Mr. Chan having to ask permission from China's premier before embarking on his career path. Why should anyone else have to do the same?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
What about classes for the rest of us?
"'They're high-profile personnel, and high-profile people need to be able to protect themselves and their families.'
- Jim Sierawski, Blackwater Worldwide's vice president of training, on an April weapons-handling course the government contractor offered to pro athletes"
(know+tell, Details magazine, May 2009, page 25)
As opposed to the rest of the peasantry, who are apparently denied the same sort of quality training from Blackwater because we can't run as fast or throw a ball as accurately, and therefore don't have the same need to "protect ourselves and our families".
Don't get us wrong; we're all in favor of personal-protection classes with both firearms and hand-to-hand components, but such training should be offered for all citizens, not just the rich, powerful and well-connected.
Blackwater would really impress us if they would design and implement similar training courses with the average working person in mind. Statistically, those everyday Joes and Janes are likely to need such education much more than the average professional sports player. Blackwater would seemingly make a huge profit, as well. Why not go for it, Mr. Sierawski?
- Jim Sierawski, Blackwater Worldwide's vice president of training, on an April weapons-handling course the government contractor offered to pro athletes"
(know+tell, Details magazine, May 2009, page 25)
As opposed to the rest of the peasantry, who are apparently denied the same sort of quality training from Blackwater because we can't run as fast or throw a ball as accurately, and therefore don't have the same need to "protect ourselves and our families".
Don't get us wrong; we're all in favor of personal-protection classes with both firearms and hand-to-hand components, but such training should be offered for all citizens, not just the rich, powerful and well-connected.
Blackwater would really impress us if they would design and implement similar training courses with the average working person in mind. Statistically, those everyday Joes and Janes are likely to need such education much more than the average professional sports player. Blackwater would seemingly make a huge profit, as well. Why not go for it, Mr. Sierawski?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Giving up? We can only hope
Chain-smoker Sarah Brady must be puffing away like a freight train right about now:
"That ban on military-style guns became law during the Clinton administration in 1994 but expired under the Bush administration in 2004. When Attorney General Eric Holder raised the idea of reinstating the ban this year, opposition from Democrats and Republicans emerged quickly.Nancy Pelosi on April 7 acknowledged that gun registration is on her agenda, days after Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not 'stand in the way' of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico." (Emphasis mine)
This execrable little man is the chief law-enforcement officer of our country, yet he's willing to give away our enumerated natural-born rights in a futile effort to somehow combat "alleged" crimes in a separate failed sovereign state.
How far we've fallen as a nation.
"That ban on military-style guns became law during the Clinton administration in 1994 but expired under the Bush administration in 2004. When Attorney General Eric Holder raised the idea of reinstating the ban this year, opposition from Democrats and Republicans emerged quickly.
Reopening the debate on gun rights is apparently a fight the White House does not want to take on right now.
'I think that there are other priorities that the president has,' spokesman Gibbs said this week."
We are cautiously optimistic that the Messiah is finally seeing the writing on the wall over this one, as there is now wide bipartisan (non) support for Mr. Holder's proposed re-ban, particularly since it's publicly come to light that he views the Second Amendment as nothing more than a slight inconvenience to furthering his (and Obama's and Nancy Pelosi's) radical anti-gun agenda:
"Democrat House SpeakerThis execrable little man is the chief law-enforcement officer of our country, yet he's willing to give away our enumerated natural-born rights in a futile effort to somehow combat "alleged" crimes in a separate failed sovereign state.
How far we've fallen as a nation.
Anchor (babies) aweigh
An article in yesterday's Arizona Republic reports that 73% of the children of illegal immigrants to this country are in fact American-born citizens.
This is hardly surprising, as the phenomenon of "anchor babies" is well-documented. The authors of the story admit as much, albeit couched in more PC language:
"Many illegal immigrants come to the United States hoping to find work, not to start a family. But the longer they stay, the more likely they are to have children born in the United States, which makes it harder for them to return to their home country." ... Although it is convenient for the federal government to classify individuals into categories such as "undocumented" immigrants or legal residents or citizens, 'it's not so easy to fit families into that same set of little boxes,' [Pew Hispanic Center demographer Jeffrey] Passel said. 'That complicates, I think, greatly the difficulty of the task of coming up with policies to deal with this population.'" (Emphases mine)
Which, of course, is exactly the point of having these children after arriving here. Once nabbed for being here illegally, point to the little ones and cry hardship, as an illegal immigrant interviewed for the piece clearly illustrates:
"I want to stay here for my children," José Luis said. "They were born here, and they have more opportunities here."
Unfairly, as those opportunities are paid for by the citizens and legal residents of this country, and are denied to the children of those willing to wait the time and pay the fees to come here legally. That immigrant's plea is nothing more than an underhanded and misdirected attempt at tugging the heartstrings of the rest of the law-abiding population.
We have a certain amount of sympathy for those children as well, as they had no choice in the location of their birth. However, the adults in a given family are the supposed to be the responsible ones, and as such should be held accountable for their actions, even if that means that their minor children must accompany them back to their home countries.
Look, if a family broke into an unoccupied house and lived there for awhile, and then once discovered claimed that they should be allowed to stay because their kids would be otherwise homeless, there's no way that argument would wash. How about if someone stole a TV, but then tried to claim that it was for their rugrats to watch educational programming? Or a parent convicted of theft who attempts to convince a judge that they should stay out of jail in order to care for their children, as they could do a much better job than foster care?
Exactly. None of these fanciful pleas would get anywhere, and neither should the "anchor baby" argument.
I'm no huge fan of Arizona Senator John McCain, but he accurately sees the issue as a shameful lack of border control by the Feds:
"But when asked about the increasing numbers of U.S.-born children of immigrants, McCain said, 'I think the obvious answer is: If you secure our borders, and we do not allow people in this country illegally, then you don't have that problem. I think it's because we have failed to secure our borders.'"
Pretty much. Get the border under control, then we'll talk about attempting to solve the myriad societal issues that have directly resulted from the 23 years of lax-enforcment since the last amnesty in 1986, which also promised us better-enforced borders.
We're still waiting.
This is hardly surprising, as the phenomenon of "anchor babies" is well-documented. The authors of the story admit as much, albeit couched in more PC language:
"Many illegal immigrants come to the United States hoping to find work, not to start a family. But the longer they stay, the more likely they are to have children born in the United States, which makes it harder for them to return to their home country." ... Although it is convenient for the federal government to classify individuals into categories such as "undocumented" immigrants or legal residents or citizens, 'it's not so easy to fit families into that same set of little boxes,' [Pew Hispanic Center demographer Jeffrey] Passel said. 'That complicates, I think, greatly the difficulty of the task of coming up with policies to deal with this population.'" (Emphases mine)
Which, of course, is exactly the point of having these children after arriving here. Once nabbed for being here illegally, point to the little ones and cry hardship, as an illegal immigrant interviewed for the piece clearly illustrates:
"I want to stay here for my children," José Luis said. "They were born here, and they have more opportunities here."
Unfairly, as those opportunities are paid for by the citizens and legal residents of this country, and are denied to the children of those willing to wait the time and pay the fees to come here legally. That immigrant's plea is nothing more than an underhanded and misdirected attempt at tugging the heartstrings of the rest of the law-abiding population.
We have a certain amount of sympathy for those children as well, as they had no choice in the location of their birth. However, the adults in a given family are the supposed to be the responsible ones, and as such should be held accountable for their actions, even if that means that their minor children must accompany them back to their home countries.
Look, if a family broke into an unoccupied house and lived there for awhile, and then once discovered claimed that they should be allowed to stay because their kids would be otherwise homeless, there's no way that argument would wash. How about if someone stole a TV, but then tried to claim that it was for their rugrats to watch educational programming? Or a parent convicted of theft who attempts to convince a judge that they should stay out of jail in order to care for their children, as they could do a much better job than foster care?
Exactly. None of these fanciful pleas would get anywhere, and neither should the "anchor baby" argument.
I'm no huge fan of Arizona Senator John McCain, but he accurately sees the issue as a shameful lack of border control by the Feds:
"But when asked about the increasing numbers of U.S.-born children of immigrants, McCain said, 'I think the obvious answer is: If you secure our borders, and we do not allow people in this country illegally, then you don't have that problem. I think it's because we have failed to secure our borders.'"
Pretty much. Get the border under control, then we'll talk about attempting to solve the myriad societal issues that have directly resulted from the 23 years of lax-enforcment since the last amnesty in 1986, which also promised us better-enforced borders.
We're still waiting.
Yep, "transparency", all right
From Politico:
"The GOPers - by that we mean Rep. Eric Cantor's office - are pouncing on an interview today on 'Morning Joe' with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, under this subject line: 'Administration Permits Only One Question, No Follow-Ups About Extremism Report.'
Obviously not, Joe. Come on, you're better than that.
That "Most Open and Transparent Administration in History" theme is really rolling right along, isn't it?
"The GOPers - by that we mean Rep. Eric Cantor's office - are pouncing on an interview today on 'Morning Joe' with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, under this subject line: 'Administration Permits Only One Question, No Follow-Ups About Extremism Report.'
Today the Secretary went on [MSNBC's] Morning Joe but they were only allowed to ask one question."
Why go on a news program at all, if you're not prepared to fully defend the actions your department took supposedly on "behalf" of the American people?
"Scarborough: 'We'll ask our audience whether we should have had her on the show or not under those conditions.'"Obviously not, Joe. Come on, you're better than that.
That "Most Open and Transparent Administration in History" theme is really rolling right along, isn't it?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Amateur hour
This is what passes for "reporting" at CNN these days:
Someone needs to gently inform Susan Roesgen that it's not considered professional "journalism" to argue a Presidential administration's talking points for them, and that her job instead is to dispassionately and objectively report the facts about an event. Maybe she overslept and missed that class at J-school.
"Did you realize that you're eligible for a $400 credit?"
I guess she wanted the man to fall to his knees right then and there and profusely thank the Messiah for granting such a smidgen of benevolent largesse to the likes of him and his peasant family.
"This is not really family viewing"
On the contrary. Every family should have been allowed to view and judge the relevance themselves of the perfectly reasonable point the man was making, had you been polite enough to let him finish it, Ms. Roesgen.
It was worth every Tea Party in America today just to watch CNN be nationally exposed as the Obama shills they really are.
Someone needs to gently inform Susan Roesgen that it's not considered professional "journalism" to argue a Presidential administration's talking points for them, and that her job instead is to dispassionately and objectively report the facts about an event. Maybe she overslept and missed that class at J-school.
"Did you realize that you're eligible for a $400 credit?"
I guess she wanted the man to fall to his knees right then and there and profusely thank the Messiah for granting such a smidgen of benevolent largesse to the likes of him and his peasant family.
"This is not really family viewing"
On the contrary. Every family should have been allowed to view and judge the relevance themselves of the perfectly reasonable point the man was making, had you been polite enough to let him finish it, Ms. Roesgen.
It was worth every Tea Party in America today just to watch CNN be nationally exposed as the Obama shills they really are.
How "far" we've come
"James Smithson (1765-1829), the British chemist and mineralogist who studied the chemistry of minerals [oddly enough], never visited the United States, but left his estate to a nephew, saying that if the nephew died childless, the estate would go to America to found the Smithsonian Institute (which occurred in 1846).
Causing many debates on both sides of the Atlantic, President Andrew Jackson asked Congress to pass legislation allowing him to accept the gift, unsure whether the Constitution gave him this authority.
Senator John C. Calhoun, among others, opposed acceptance and maintained that Congress had no authority to accept the gift. Congress finally authorized acceptance in 1836, and a museum was agreed on 10 years later." (Emphases mine)
- (Science's Most Wanted, by Susan Conner and Linda Kitchen, Brassey's, Inc., page 157)
Imagine that. There was actually a time period in this country when our benevolent national leaders recognized that there were hard limits on their "authority", and they actually fiercely debated an issue as innocuous as the acceptance of a bequest.
Ah, the good ol' days.
Causing many debates on both sides of the Atlantic, President Andrew Jackson asked Congress to pass legislation allowing him to accept the gift, unsure whether the Constitution gave him this authority.
Senator John C. Calhoun, among others, opposed acceptance and maintained that Congress had no authority to accept the gift. Congress finally authorized acceptance in 1836, and a museum was agreed on 10 years later." (Emphases mine)
- (Science's Most Wanted, by Susan Conner and Linda Kitchen, Brassey's, Inc., page 157)
Imagine that. There was actually a time period in this country when our benevolent national leaders recognized that there were hard limits on their "authority", and they actually fiercely debated an issue as innocuous as the acceptance of a bequest.
Ah, the good ol' days.
She can turn a phrase like nobody's business
"If the SAT test were used to determine how stupid a liberal is, one question would be: "The best defense against lawless rogues who possess _______ is for law-abiding individuals to surrender their own _______________."
Correct answer: Guns. We would also have accepted nuclear weapons."
Miss Ann Coulter, ladies and gentlemen.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Happy to return the favor
Can anyone identify the fellow in the following picture?
Presumably a federal agent of some sort, he was seen filming the Tea Party rally in San Diego last Saturday.
According to at least one source, the man was observed getting out of a vehicle with Federal government plates and then made a big show of obviously filming the crowd during the protest, in an apparent blatant attempt at intimidation. He subsequently was seen going to a nearby parking lot and filming the license plates of every car parked there.
The government seemingly maintains that they can freely take our pictures in public whenever they please, but we can't take theirs?
Nope. Turnabout is fair play. Enjoy your new-found fame, sir.
Presumably a federal agent of some sort, he was seen filming the Tea Party rally in San Diego last Saturday.
According to at least one source, the man was observed getting out of a vehicle with Federal government plates and then made a big show of obviously filming the crowd during the protest, in an apparent blatant attempt at intimidation. He subsequently was seen going to a nearby parking lot and filming the license plates of every car parked there.
The government seemingly maintains that they can freely take our pictures in public whenever they please, but we can't take theirs?
Nope. Turnabout is fair play. Enjoy your new-found fame, sir.
Insulting
Arizona's recent "gift" to the rest of America (you're welcome), Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, has decreed that the current tough economy, along with the election of the Messiah, has prompted a surge of "right-wing-extremism".
"DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been 'largely rhetorical.'"
Then how about getting back to us when you have something more to report than the normal grumbling and nonsense-spouting from the "usual suspects" such as the Nazi Party and the Klan, Ms. Napolitano? Those sorts of groups will preach their hate no matter what circumstances the country finds itself in, in case you hadn't noticed by now.
It's also quite interesting to note the timing of this so-called "warning", as it was released the day before thousands of law-abiding citizens who are mostly conservative in bent are expected to demonstrate in a nationwide modern-day Tea Party, in order to loudly and peaceably protest the trillions of our tax dollars currently being wasted and misspent by the Federal Government. Certainly nobody in the Executive Branch figured that something like this bogus "alert" might intimidate innocent people and possibly suppress turnout for the rallies, right?
"A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time."
But was apparently not publicized at all, at least compared to the play today's little memo is getting. Funny how that seems to always happen along ideological lines.
After all, it wasn't conservatives who were attempting to burn down London at last month's G20 meetings, was it? We wonder if any of the groups responsible for the violence over there had been listed on January's "left-wing" memo, and why any such connection wasn't given publicity at that time.
Actually, given the reported overwhelming liberal bias of mainstream journalists, especially those covering government and political issues, we really aren't wondering much at all.
UPDATE: Roger Hedgecock interviewed Sean Smith, Assistant Secretary of DHS for Public Affairs, on his radio show today. Mr. Smith maintained with a straight face that a "left-wing extremist" report was indeed prepared in January, but refused to provide a copy for public consumption, unlike his boss did for their execrable "right-wing" version.
Stunningly, Mr. Smith, a high-ranking Homeland Security official in the Obama White House, admitted to Hedgecock that he has never heard of the murderous Salvadoran MS-13 street gang, an entity that represents a far greater threat to our country than conservative activists lawfully protesting the ever-increasing yoke of taxation, in our view.
Hedgecock finally did obtain a copy of the "left-wing extremist" memo from an anonymous source, and pointed out the fact that that report named specific groups, agendas and events, unlike today's report, which merely points the accusatory finger at everyone who holds traditionally conservative views.
Amusingly, the callers to Hedgecock's show during the past hour featured a number of street cops who are mystified that their finite departmental resources would be stretched even thinner to "investigate" participants in a lawful, peaceful protest, and to a person they ridiculed Mr. Smith for not having the slightest inkling of the existence of MS-13.
"DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been 'largely rhetorical.'"
Then how about getting back to us when you have something more to report than the normal grumbling and nonsense-spouting from the "usual suspects" such as the Nazi Party and the Klan, Ms. Napolitano? Those sorts of groups will preach their hate no matter what circumstances the country finds itself in, in case you hadn't noticed by now.
It's also quite interesting to note the timing of this so-called "warning", as it was released the day before thousands of law-abiding citizens who are mostly conservative in bent are expected to demonstrate in a nationwide modern-day Tea Party, in order to loudly and peaceably protest the trillions of our tax dollars currently being wasted and misspent by the Federal Government. Certainly nobody in the Executive Branch figured that something like this bogus "alert" might intimidate innocent people and possibly suppress turnout for the rallies, right?
"A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time."
But was apparently not publicized at all, at least compared to the play today's little memo is getting. Funny how that seems to always happen along ideological lines.
After all, it wasn't conservatives who were attempting to burn down London at last month's G20 meetings, was it? We wonder if any of the groups responsible for the violence over there had been listed on January's "left-wing" memo, and why any such connection wasn't given publicity at that time.
Actually, given the reported overwhelming liberal bias of mainstream journalists, especially those covering government and political issues, we really aren't wondering much at all.
UPDATE: Roger Hedgecock interviewed Sean Smith, Assistant Secretary of DHS for Public Affairs, on his radio show today. Mr. Smith maintained with a straight face that a "left-wing extremist" report was indeed prepared in January, but refused to provide a copy for public consumption, unlike his boss did for their execrable "right-wing" version.
Stunningly, Mr. Smith, a high-ranking Homeland Security official in the Obama White House, admitted to Hedgecock that he has never heard of the murderous Salvadoran MS-13 street gang, an entity that represents a far greater threat to our country than conservative activists lawfully protesting the ever-increasing yoke of taxation, in our view.
Hedgecock finally did obtain a copy of the "left-wing extremist" memo from an anonymous source, and pointed out the fact that that report named specific groups, agendas and events, unlike today's report, which merely points the accusatory finger at everyone who holds traditionally conservative views.
Amusingly, the callers to Hedgecock's show during the past hour featured a number of street cops who are mystified that their finite departmental resources would be stretched even thinner to "investigate" participants in a lawful, peaceful protest, and to a person they ridiculed Mr. Smith for not having the slightest inkling of the existence of MS-13.
Monday, April 13, 2009
No charges were filed, oddly enough
"Three Gainesville police officers received written warnings for traveling through high-crime areas while off duty and harassing people, according to an investigation into the events, which occurred in November."
These fine "professionals", along with a University of Florida police officer, thought it would be a grand idea to get all liquored up and then drive around some of the sleazier areas of Gainesville, Florida while yelling at pedestrians, throwing eggs and otherwise harassing people in those areas for no reason whatsoever. This behavior happened at least three times, and two of those joyrides ended identically when an on-duty officer finally pulled over the overgrown juveniles. Unfortunately (but luckily, for the boobs), both cops merely sent the jerks home despite their drunk and disorderly conduct, and despite evidence that the driver of the vehicle was intoxicated on at least one of the occasions:
"According to the investigative report, a woman who is not a law enforcement officer was driving the truck. The report says the woman, as "the least intoxicated," had offered to drive." (Emphasis mine)A bunch of presumably armed drunks tooling around an area known for its high crime rate, baiting anybody they come across, whether that passerby was a suspected criminal or not. That truly sounds like a recipe for disaster to us, and a scenario that would certainly get a carload of your average doofus peasants locked up on felony charges had they decided to engage in the same hijinks. Instead, these clowns get free passes from their colleagues, and are told to go home and sleep it off.
"The GPD officers reprimanded were: Brett Robison, Roy "Billy" Long and Joshua Hinson. Officer Keith Smith with the UF Police Department was also involved, but it was unclear Tuesday evening if he had been disciplined."
Written warnings and some fleeting public shame, which we are pleased to help provide, at least. That'll teach them. Don't dislocate your arm with the punishment stick there, Mr. Police Chief.
More important, we feel, are the names of the on-duty patrolmen who allowed these idiots to get off scot-free with their dangerous, disgusting behavior solely because they were "special people", and why they aren't facing any discipline over the incident.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
A snapshot of life
April 11, 2009
Fredericksburg, Texas
4:00 p.m.
While wandering the main street of this tourist town, which features many wine-tasting rooms and German beer-serving restaurants, we noticed two Fredericksburg police officers (one male, one female) who represented the very epitome of community policing.
The officers were wearing regular uniforms, not tactical "operator" clothing, and were slowly walking down the sidewalk, interacting with shop owners, browsers and pedestrians with the same manner for all - friendly, helpful and accommodating, despite the fact that most of the adults had an alcoholic drink of some sort in their hands (there apparently is no open-container law in the town, and consuming while ambling about is quite tolerated, if not openly encouraged).
We observed these officers for an extended period as they were walking at about the same pace we were, and we were struck at how service-oriented these individuals were being. Giving out directions, warning Junior to stay out of the street, seeing how the day's business was doing - all of these tasks were done quite professionally with a smile, without a hint of barking of orders or the aloof air of "us versus them", which is a far cry from some of the more brutish police behavior we've unfortunately documented here recently.
Keep up the excellent work, officers. Your community is lucky to have you protecting it. You two are doing fine work, and it was noticed.
Fredericksburg, Texas
4:00 p.m.
While wandering the main street of this tourist town, which features many wine-tasting rooms and German beer-serving restaurants, we noticed two Fredericksburg police officers (one male, one female) who represented the very epitome of community policing.
The officers were wearing regular uniforms, not tactical "operator" clothing, and were slowly walking down the sidewalk, interacting with shop owners, browsers and pedestrians with the same manner for all - friendly, helpful and accommodating, despite the fact that most of the adults had an alcoholic drink of some sort in their hands (there apparently is no open-container law in the town, and consuming while ambling about is quite tolerated, if not openly encouraged).
We observed these officers for an extended period as they were walking at about the same pace we were, and we were struck at how service-oriented these individuals were being. Giving out directions, warning Junior to stay out of the street, seeing how the day's business was doing - all of these tasks were done quite professionally with a smile, without a hint of barking of orders or the aloof air of "us versus them", which is a far cry from some of the more brutish police behavior we've unfortunately documented here recently.
Keep up the excellent work, officers. Your community is lucky to have you protecting it. You two are doing fine work, and it was noticed.
Stop the presses
Man goes to gun show, legally buys guns.
That's the event television "news" magazine 20/20 recently presented as one of their hard-hitting investigative tours de force.
In what basically amounted to a propaganda piece and which was certainly not an example of independent journalism, the producers of the show equipped a brother of one of the Virginia Tech shooting victims with $5,000, and then filmed him as he legally bought weapons at a gun show in Richmond. Where's the news in that?
The announced reason for the segment was to supposedly outline the dangers of the gun show "loophole", even though no such thing exists, as we've repeatedly pointed out in previous posts.
In addition (and more to the point of this specific story), the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre legally bought his weapons through a Federally-licensed gun shop, passing all mandated checks, and not a gun show, making this hit piece even more nonsensical and completely unrelated to what actually happened on the campus that tragic day. We suppose having the brother go to a gun store, filling out paperwork and being subjected to an instant-backround check wasn't considered "sexy" enough for the newsies, even though that's exactly what the shooter had to go through in order to obtain his weapons.
"In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reports in their investigations that private sellers at gun shows are a major source of gun crime in the country."
In all honesty, we wouldn't believe the ATF if they called and told us the sky outside was blue and that water runs downhill. Our skepticism of that agency was only just recently reinforced by the discovery of the ATF's creative fudging of statistics, in that they loudly claimed that 90% of all guns used in crimes in Mexico were found to have been purchased in the U.S. and illegally smuggled into that country. In fact, the number is actually more like 17%, as this Fox News story notes:
"William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that 'there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States.'"
Oh, really?
After some began to question that statement, the truth slowly began oozing out:
"What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, 'is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S.'
That's the event television "news" magazine 20/20 recently presented as one of their hard-hitting investigative tours de force.
In what basically amounted to a propaganda piece and which was certainly not an example of independent journalism, the producers of the show equipped a brother of one of the Virginia Tech shooting victims with $5,000, and then filmed him as he legally bought weapons at a gun show in Richmond. Where's the news in that?
The announced reason for the segment was to supposedly outline the dangers of the gun show "loophole", even though no such thing exists, as we've repeatedly pointed out in previous posts.
In addition (and more to the point of this specific story), the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre legally bought his weapons through a Federally-licensed gun shop, passing all mandated checks, and not a gun show, making this hit piece even more nonsensical and completely unrelated to what actually happened on the campus that tragic day. We suppose having the brother go to a gun store, filling out paperwork and being subjected to an instant-backround check wasn't considered "sexy" enough for the newsies, even though that's exactly what the shooter had to go through in order to obtain his weapons.
"In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reports in their investigations that private sellers at gun shows are a major source of gun crime in the country."
In all honesty, we wouldn't believe the ATF if they called and told us the sky outside was blue and that water runs downhill. Our skepticism of that agency was only just recently reinforced by the discovery of the ATF's creative fudging of statistics, in that they loudly claimed that 90% of all guns used in crimes in Mexico were found to have been purchased in the U.S. and illegally smuggled into that country. In fact, the number is actually more like 17%, as this Fox News story notes:
"William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that 'there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States.'"
Oh, really?
After some began to question that statement, the truth slowly began oozing out:
"What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, 'is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S.'
But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S." (All emphases mine)
Meaning such items as the fully-automatic rifles, grenades and rocket launchers that are usually featured in the standard video backgrounds used when these misleading reports air.
So, if Mexico were to only submit ten firearms out of 10,000 for tracing, and nine of those ten came back as being from the U.S., then the U.S. is still ninety percent responsible overall, according to Mr. Hoover's math. He seems to be about as effective in a law-enforcement role as his similarly-named colleague J. Edgar was in his.
17% is admittedly not a shining number, and that percentage can and should be reduced not only by enforcing current federal and state laws, but also by the firearm-owning community policing their own members. But that percentage is not 90%, nor is it even close to a majority, which means that law-abiding American gun owners by an overwhelming margin are not causing or exacerbating Mexico's problems, despite the ATF's "incorrect" (to be generous) assertion.
As usual, Mexico is Mexico's main problem, and that fact will continue to be true until the thoroughly corrupt government down there gets bounced out once and for all.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
FYI
Here is the text of the formal complaint letter that I faxed this afternoon to the head of court security at the O'Connor Federal Building:
I will inform everyone once I receive a response.
Douglas Hester
Scottsdale, AZ
April 9, 2009
L/CSO Juan Pieve
Head of Security
Sandra Day O’Connor Federal Building
401 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ
Officer Pieve:
As we discussed in person yesterday, I wish to file a formal complaint about two of your officers.
On Monday, April 6, 2009, I was engaged in lawful activities on a public sidewalk adjacent to the O’Connor Federal Building when I was approached, unlawfully detained and threatened with arrest by these officers. When asked, they articulated no reasonable suspicion of any alleged illegal activities on my part, nor would they cite any statutes preventing the activities I was then participating in.
Please find directly below the transcription of the conversation that took place between myself and the officers, which clearly proves that I was indeed officially detained by the officers:
[I copied the written transcript I made of the encounter]Further details, including video of the encounter, may be viewed online at:
http://northernmuckraker.blogspot.com/2009/04/rousted-by-federal-court-security.html
The actions taken by your officers were clearly unlawful, and could additionally be considered harassment. Accordingly, I respectfully ask you to investigate the behavior of these officers, and apply any sanctions/retraining that you believe appropriate, in order to prevent such a situation from happening in the future.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and thank you again for your polite, professional and service-oriented manner during our conversation yesterday.
Respectfully,
I will inform everyone once I receive a response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
