Tuesday, June 30, 2009
A real class act
"Comedian" Jamie Foxx (real name: Eric Bishop) commenting about 16-year old white teen star Miley Cyrus on his Sirius radio show, April 12, 2009.
The same "funnyman", generously (and presumptuously) deigning on behalf of black people everywhere to share the legacy of their dead black pop star (because, you know, the singer "belonged to them" exclusively) with the millions of fans of other colors who enjoyed the star's records, Black Entertainment Television, June 28, 2009.
That's funny, Mr. Bishop. We didn't hear such vocal support for Mr. Jackson while he was being investigated multiple times (and tried once) for being a pedophile, the reason why we long ago stopped listening to Jackson's admittedly quality music. You can have him, sir. He's all yours.
A white comedian who spewed similar blatantly racist pronouncements about people who happened to be minorities would be immediately (and correctly, in our view) taken to task for their statements (and some indeed have been; recent examples include Don Imus and Michael Richards), and the tiresome race pimps such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would no doubt instantly be in front of the performer's house with torches and pitchforks, demanding their pound of flesh.
Why should Mr. Bishop fare any differently?
UPDATE: Now the two race pimps are actually slap-fighting each other over which one of them will get the "honor" of being in front of the world media as the "spokesman and adviser" to the Jackson family.
One honestly couldn't write a farce like this and get it accepted for publication, as it just wouldn't be believable enough.
Here's what's being shoved down our throats without us being allowed to have so much as a glance
The "usual suspects" are hell-bent on ramming their coveted socialized medicine "health care" bill through Congress just as rapidly as they pushed the climate-change "cap-and-trade" nightmare out of the House last week. The main reason for the speedy passage seems to be to deny the American peasant the chance to take even a quick peek at the sort of society-changing legislation that's being piled on them at warp speed:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) will not give the public a week to review the final text of a health-care reform bill before it is voted on later this year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) has also declined to commit to giving the public a week to read and consider the final health-care bill."
This must be another one of those "emergencies" that the Messiah just has to instantly sign into law or else society will collapse forthwith.
We look forward excitedly to having this monstrosity of a government takeover solve all of our imagined woes. We're going to be treated to such "improvements" as:
The promise of more efficiency by the introduction of centralized record keeping, the same sort of program which is currently preventing terminally ill and cancer-stricken patients in Virginia from receiving narcotic pain medication, due to the state's central prescription drug database being hacked (back in April!);
And the imposition of a dictatorial bureaucracy that will tell us what medicines we can and can't use whether or not their reasoning makes any sense, like our betters at the FDA who now get to regulate flavoring out of tobacco, and who are right this second debating pulling safe and effective over-the-counter medications such as Nyquil, Midol and Theraflu from store shelves, all because a few idiots a year get acetaminophen poisoning because they're too stupid to read the label directions for themselves. (We can just hear the argument that at least one person must be making behind that closed door - "If it saves just one life, it's well worth the millions of people who will have to suffer through colds, flu and bad menstrual cramps on a monthly basis". That person must not be either female or married.);
And how we're going to enjoy the sort of great care right from birth that countries such as Canada provide to their citizens. Why not ask the parents of Ava Stinson, a premature Canuck infant who was rushed to Buffalo, New York (a severely economically depressed town, remember) for care because the two cities of Hamilton and Toronto in Canada (combined population: 6 million people. This is no rural, isolated area; in fact, this part of Ontario is the most populous part of Canada) couldn't come up with a single NICU bed for her. We're sure the Stinsons would just gush about the quality of care they've received from their government, but they're pretty busy right now trying to obtain passports so that they can cross the border to visit their daughter in New York.
Yes, the good times are just ahead, if only we would lie back and let the Messiah handle every aspect of our oh-so complicated lives for us.
(By the way, speaking of health care, our supposedly strong-charactered President weakly just can't seem to quit smoking himself, despite constantly condemning others who indulge in the habit, and is proceeding to further punish them by imposing astronomical tax hikes and a plethora of new and ever-more onerous regulations on the smokers, such as the banning of flavored tobacco. We don't know why he is so adamant about this subject; doesn't he realize that smokers are going to end up being a major factor in funding his pet scheme?)
Mark Steyn, who wrote the piece about little Ava, hits it right square in the bullseye:
"Once Buffalo enjoys the benefits of Hamilton-level health care, I wonder where Ontario will be shipping the preemies to. Costa Rica?"
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) will not give the public a week to review the final text of a health-care reform bill before it is voted on later this year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) has also declined to commit to giving the public a week to read and consider the final health-care bill."
This must be another one of those "emergencies" that the Messiah just has to instantly sign into law or else society will collapse forthwith.
We look forward excitedly to having this monstrosity of a government takeover solve all of our imagined woes. We're going to be treated to such "improvements" as:
The promise of more efficiency by the introduction of centralized record keeping, the same sort of program which is currently preventing terminally ill and cancer-stricken patients in Virginia from receiving narcotic pain medication, due to the state's central prescription drug database being hacked (back in April!);
And the imposition of a dictatorial bureaucracy that will tell us what medicines we can and can't use whether or not their reasoning makes any sense, like our betters at the FDA who now get to regulate flavoring out of tobacco, and who are right this second debating pulling safe and effective over-the-counter medications such as Nyquil, Midol and Theraflu from store shelves, all because a few idiots a year get acetaminophen poisoning because they're too stupid to read the label directions for themselves. (We can just hear the argument that at least one person must be making behind that closed door - "If it saves just one life, it's well worth the millions of people who will have to suffer through colds, flu and bad menstrual cramps on a monthly basis". That person must not be either female or married.);
And how we're going to enjoy the sort of great care right from birth that countries such as Canada provide to their citizens. Why not ask the parents of Ava Stinson, a premature Canuck infant who was rushed to Buffalo, New York (a severely economically depressed town, remember) for care because the two cities of Hamilton and Toronto in Canada (combined population: 6 million people. This is no rural, isolated area; in fact, this part of Ontario is the most populous part of Canada) couldn't come up with a single NICU bed for her. We're sure the Stinsons would just gush about the quality of care they've received from their government, but they're pretty busy right now trying to obtain passports so that they can cross the border to visit their daughter in New York.
Yes, the good times are just ahead, if only we would lie back and let the Messiah handle every aspect of our oh-so complicated lives for us.
(By the way, speaking of health care, our supposedly strong-charactered President weakly just can't seem to quit smoking himself, despite constantly condemning others who indulge in the habit, and is proceeding to further punish them by imposing astronomical tax hikes and a plethora of new and ever-more onerous regulations on the smokers, such as the banning of flavored tobacco. We don't know why he is so adamant about this subject; doesn't he realize that smokers are going to end up being a major factor in funding his pet scheme?)
Mark Steyn, who wrote the piece about little Ava, hits it right square in the bullseye:
"Once Buffalo enjoys the benefits of Hamilton-level health care, I wonder where Ontario will be shipping the preemies to. Costa Rica?"
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week, International Edition...
... are the British police officers who violently arrested a woman, during which they grabbed her around the throat and twisted her head to face a camera, because she simply (and politely) asked one of them for his name and badge number.
The cops were filming a camp set up by hippies in order to peacefully protest some sort of environmental cause, and the woman, Emily Apple, was apparently part of a separate group that films the police right back during these interactions, in order to document any alleged abuses of authority (just like the very one that was committed against her, ironically). She is seen on the tape holding a very deadly notebook and pen while informing the cop who petulantly refused to give up his badge number that he indeed has to provide his identifying information when asked. The man is seen walking away, and Apple is then grabbed from behind and tackled when she attempts to follow him.
Her female partner, Val Swain, the one actually doing the filming, was also manhandled by a couple of bullies and taken into custody. She never interacted with the police at all, save for standing around with a running camera. Fortunately for the pair, a different person captured the whole incident on video, as displayed on the Guardian newspaper's Web site.
All charges were subsequently dropped, of course, as the ladies obviously weren't doing anything wrong, but not before they spent four days in jail. They have subsequently filed a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
We'll presumably soon learn just how "independent" they really are.
(Carlos Miller link)
The cops were filming a camp set up by hippies in order to peacefully protest some sort of environmental cause, and the woman, Emily Apple, was apparently part of a separate group that films the police right back during these interactions, in order to document any alleged abuses of authority (just like the very one that was committed against her, ironically). She is seen on the tape holding a very deadly notebook and pen while informing the cop who petulantly refused to give up his badge number that he indeed has to provide his identifying information when asked. The man is seen walking away, and Apple is then grabbed from behind and tackled when she attempts to follow him.
Her female partner, Val Swain, the one actually doing the filming, was also manhandled by a couple of bullies and taken into custody. She never interacted with the police at all, save for standing around with a running camera. Fortunately for the pair, a different person captured the whole incident on video, as displayed on the Guardian newspaper's Web site.
All charges were subsequently dropped, of course, as the ladies obviously weren't doing anything wrong, but not before they spent four days in jail. They have subsequently filed a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
We'll presumably soon learn just how "independent" they really are.
(Carlos Miller link)
Monday, June 29, 2009
A stark contrast in Presidential responses to similar situations
Hundreds of thousands of Iranians put their lives on the line to protest President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remaining in power by means of an obvious-by-all-reasonable-standards fraudulent election and President Obama says nothing about it until he's forced to, and even then can only manage a tepid "the world is watching", instead of forcefully defending the right of millions of people in that country to determine their own destiny and lawfully rid themselves of their would-be dictator, in order to move closer to joining Americans in freedom.
Honduran President Mel Zelaya, another dictator-wannabe like his good buddy Hugo Chavez, gets bounced out of his country by that nation's Congress, Supreme Court, Attorney General, the Honduran military and the majority of the population for attempting to pull some shady shenanigans and unilaterally change the rules in order to remain in office beyond his constitutionally-imposed one-term limit, and now the Messiah immediately gets all agitated and proclaims that the brave preserving by Hondurans of their government and freedoms is "not legal", and that America (meaning him, of course) will "stand on the side of democracy"?
Why the sudden change of heart?
"That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
Honduran President Mel Zelaya, another dictator-wannabe like his good buddy Hugo Chavez, gets bounced out of his country by that nation's Congress, Supreme Court, Attorney General, the Honduran military and the majority of the population for attempting to pull some shady shenanigans and unilaterally change the rules in order to remain in office beyond his constitutionally-imposed one-term limit, and now the Messiah immediately gets all agitated and proclaims that the brave preserving by Hondurans of their government and freedoms is "not legal", and that America (meaning him, of course) will "stand on the side of democracy"?
Why the sudden change of heart?
"That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.
The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.
Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.
The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica."
We can clearly see what "side" the Messiah is on, and it's most assuredly not the one of "democracy". Perhaps he just became a wee bit uncomfortable about what might happen to his administration should he get a little greedy and attempt one too many end-runs around the Constitution.A city indeed can't toss a test merely because they don't like the results
The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that a municipality such as New Haven, Connecticut may not arbitrarily toss out the results of a civil service promotion exam simply (and solely) because the whites and Hispanics who passed the test don't happen to fit the burghers' reverse-racism "diversity" requirements.
The fact that the majority of the Justices disagreed with appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who saw fit to flippantly dismiss the legitimate complaints of the firefighters who filed the lawsuit with a one-paragraph explanation, in addition to her own numerous other public statements on the subject, convinces us that Sotomayor is indeed a "quota queen" who simply isn't fit to render impartial judgments as a member of our country's court of last resort.
The fact that the majority of the Justices disagreed with appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who saw fit to flippantly dismiss the legitimate complaints of the firefighters who filed the lawsuit with a one-paragraph explanation, in addition to her own numerous other public statements on the subject, convinces us that Sotomayor is indeed a "quota queen" who simply isn't fit to render impartial judgments as a member of our country's court of last resort.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Thanks for publicly stating that viewpoint, Officer
Chattanooga, Tennessee police officer and local print columnist Alex Teach gives both the Chattanooga City Council and the Hamilton County Commission a much-needed dose of street-cop common sense, in response to the chorus of whining from those august bodies after the Tennessee Attorney General reminded them that they just don't have the authority to ban legally carried handguns in bars and restaurants (apparently they're going to be allowed to ban them from local parks, but only have until September 1 to do so):
"Shouldn’t that seem strange that cops, the ones that deal with permit holders the most, don’t have a thing to say about them but “Thanks”?
"Speaking as a sworn law enforcement officer, I say that carry permits serve to keep personal protection and accountability right where they should be, despite such cries: In the hands of the American citizen."
Very well put, sir. The people there are fortunate to have you working for them.
"Shouldn’t that seem strange that cops, the ones that deal with permit holders the most, don’t have a thing to say about them but “Thanks”?
Yes, that’s also right. When I approach a car at night, I am trained to wonder if they have a gun, whoever is actually inside it; same with a stranger at his house when called, or on the street when presented with such. I cannot properly express how mind-numbingly aggravating it is to wonder just when some random 18 or 80 year old is going to pull a gun on me any more than I can express how frustrating the question, “Do you know who I am?” is, but I’ll say this: I’m certainly grateful when the suspense is eliminated with the words, “By the way, I have a concealed weapons license; the weapon is here, I will not touch it, and here is my permit.”
Holy Hell, the first instinct I have is to follow them to a Waffle House and buy them a sweet cup of joe, NOT to enact laws against them."
"Speaking as a sworn law enforcement officer, I say that carry permits serve to keep personal protection and accountability right where they should be, despite such cries: In the hands of the American citizen."
Very well put, sir. The people there are fortunate to have you working for them.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Another major step on the road to socialism
Here are the names of the eight treasonous "Republican" representatives who voted to pass H.R. 2454, the "cap and trade" carbon emissions bill that constitutes 1.) a Big-Brother-like Federal government intrusion into just about every aspect of an American citizen's life, and 2.) by far the largest tax increase in history. Without the support of these turncoats, the measure would have failed.
We can't even ascertain how bad the bill is actually going to be, because 300 pages of amendments were slipped into the bill at 3:00 a.m. this morning, and those who voted "aye" couldn't possibly have had time to read and digest it, much less common peasants such as ourselves. In fact, there was only one copy of the complete bill available for inspection in the entire House today, and it was located at the Speaker's desk. Another outstanding example of "transparency" and open government, you will observe.
These Congressmen, who by their vote have violated every tenet of the core conservative principles of the Republican Party, should be immediately cut off from party financial and logistics support, stripped of any minority leadership positions they currently hold, and voters in their districts should make plans to oust them from office in 2010:
Mary Bono (California)
Michael Castle (Delaware)
Mark Kirk (Illinois)
Leonard Lance (New Jersey)
Frank LoBiondo (New Jersey)
John McHugh (New York)
David Reichert (Washington)
Chris Smith (New Jersey)
These shortsighted legislators must be held accountable for helping to saddle our country with a law that will most assuredly propel us deeper into the current depression, and will serve (just as the Messiah plans) to hamstring our growth and prosperity relative to other nations forever. If you live in one of their districts, please support their primary challenger in 2010.
We are very gratified, however, to learn that our own Democratic representative, Harry Mitchell, voted against this execrable bill. The more we follow his voting record, the more we like him.
We can't even ascertain how bad the bill is actually going to be, because 300 pages of amendments were slipped into the bill at 3:00 a.m. this morning, and those who voted "aye" couldn't possibly have had time to read and digest it, much less common peasants such as ourselves. In fact, there was only one copy of the complete bill available for inspection in the entire House today, and it was located at the Speaker's desk. Another outstanding example of "transparency" and open government, you will observe.
These Congressmen, who by their vote have violated every tenet of the core conservative principles of the Republican Party, should be immediately cut off from party financial and logistics support, stripped of any minority leadership positions they currently hold, and voters in their districts should make plans to oust them from office in 2010:
Mary Bono (California)
Michael Castle (Delaware)
Mark Kirk (Illinois)
Leonard Lance (New Jersey)
Frank LoBiondo (New Jersey)
John McHugh (New York)
David Reichert (Washington)
Chris Smith (New Jersey)
These shortsighted legislators must be held accountable for helping to saddle our country with a law that will most assuredly propel us deeper into the current depression, and will serve (just as the Messiah plans) to hamstring our growth and prosperity relative to other nations forever. If you live in one of their districts, please support their primary challenger in 2010.
We are very gratified, however, to learn that our own Democratic representative, Harry Mitchell, voted against this execrable bill. The more we follow his voting record, the more we like him.
Summer mayhem in Chi-town, right on schedule
The city of Chicago's complete ban on handgun ownership (not just public carry) by law-abiding residents remains firmly in place, at least for now, thanks to the expensive (but publicly-financed, so who cares, right?) and seemingly ultimately Quixotic legal efforts of rabidly anti-gun King Emperor Mayor-for-Life Richard Daley, who conveniently enjoys a 24-hour personal bodyguard of police officers.
His "Honor" is helped out in his struggle by the sycophantic aldermen of the city, who have hypocritically given themselves alone the ability to legally carry a handgun in public (without any of the training requirements or background checks that residents of other metropolitan areas are required to submit to before being granted carry permits, we might add).
When one additionally notes the fact that the incredibly large amount of criminals and gang thugs in the Windy City don't pay a bit of attention and laugh at the city's ban by continuing to use guns to commit crimes, one quickly realizes that the poor peasants are pretty much the only people in that city who are disarmed.
So, how's that ban been working out for them? Violent crime is down lately, right?
Er - no, not really.
Actually, the city has announced that its hospitals are about to run out of blood due to a massive wave of crime and violence, and they are begging for donors to come in and bail them out.
If that weren't enough, Chicago now has the distinction of having 5 of the top 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in America, according to a group who analyzed FBI data to assemble the list.
In other words, they're having a typical Chicago summer up there.
If the definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result at some point, Daley and his cronies on the City Council are complete stark raving madmen.
His "Honor" is helped out in his struggle by the sycophantic aldermen of the city, who have hypocritically given themselves alone the ability to legally carry a handgun in public (without any of the training requirements or background checks that residents of other metropolitan areas are required to submit to before being granted carry permits, we might add).
When one additionally notes the fact that the incredibly large amount of criminals and gang thugs in the Windy City don't pay a bit of attention and laugh at the city's ban by continuing to use guns to commit crimes, one quickly realizes that the poor peasants are pretty much the only people in that city who are disarmed.
So, how's that ban been working out for them? Violent crime is down lately, right?
Er - no, not really.
Actually, the city has announced that its hospitals are about to run out of blood due to a massive wave of crime and violence, and they are begging for donors to come in and bail them out.
If that weren't enough, Chicago now has the distinction of having 5 of the top 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in America, according to a group who analyzed FBI data to assemble the list.
In other words, they're having a typical Chicago summer up there.
If the definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result at some point, Daley and his cronies on the City Council are complete stark raving madmen.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
... are the Arizona Department of Public Safety, collectively, for employing Officer Michael Fields for as long as they did, along with Lt. James Warriner, DPS spokesman, for offering up an unbelievably asinine comment while attempting to defend his agency's long-time reluctance to cashier Fields, a statement that we'll discuss shortly.
(For clarity reasons, we should specify that DPS is basically the Arizona State Police.)
The Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, the organization that licenses law-enforcement officers in the state, has seen fit to yank the certification from DPS Officer Fields after the latest of the eight complaints (God only knows how many other people were too intimidated or scared to file allegations of their own) recorded against him during his nine-year career came to light.
According to a story in Wednesday's Arizona Republic (no Web link because, curiously, the print version of the article isn't posted online, unlike every other news article. We wonder why that is?), Fields was on-duty and riding his department motorcycle when he noticed a black man driving down a street while smoking a thin cigar. Mistakenly believing the cigar was marijuana, Fields pulled up beside the man, pointed his handgun at him, and a transcript of the incident records him as barking,
"Is smokin' your frickin' weed worth that? Put your hands on the dashboard. I'll frickin' blow you full of (expletive) holes, bitch".
After realizing his mistake, Fields apparently gave the man a ration of crap for smoking, and then proceeded to ride off with the parting words of "I'm trying to go home. Have a nice day".
This latest incident occurred approximately one year after Fields was charged with disorderly conduct for making inflammatory comments towards a woman while high on alcohol and painkillers at a salsa festival. (Fields was placed into a diversion program for that little escapade, naturally).
Fortunately for us Arizona residents, Fields resigned last September before this latest investigation into his outrageous actions was complete, and the POST board's subsequent stripping of his license pretty much guarantees that his law-enforcement career is over.
Now, for Lt. Warriner. After the article informs the readers that ex-Officer Fields was suspended a total of five times in his nine years with DPS, Warriner responds publicly that:
"Warriner said the number of incidents involving Fields wasn't particularly alarming, but the agency has started to put measures in place to identify problems with DPS officers before they reached a critical level."
WASN'T PARTICULARLY ALARMING? Fields averaged an unpaid suspension every 21 months during his tenure with DPS, and this goofball Warriner doesn't think that's "particularly alarming"? What, pray tell, would be, short of Fields actually being caught in the middle of committing a homicide?
One thing's for sure. Having Lt. Warriner as an agency spokesman isn't helping out DPS at all.
We've got news for the good lieutenant. The situation with Fields reached a "critical level" about three suspensions ago. We're still not sure if DPS was ever going to fire the rogue cop, except that the POST board apparently finally stepped in and said "enough is enough".
If Michael Fields represents the kind of "professional" that DPS believes should be wearing their uniform (and who is worthy of so many chances, at the expense of the public), our respect for that agency just fell into the basement.
(For clarity reasons, we should specify that DPS is basically the Arizona State Police.)
The Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, the organization that licenses law-enforcement officers in the state, has seen fit to yank the certification from DPS Officer Fields after the latest of the eight complaints (God only knows how many other people were too intimidated or scared to file allegations of their own) recorded against him during his nine-year career came to light.
According to a story in Wednesday's Arizona Republic (no Web link because, curiously, the print version of the article isn't posted online, unlike every other news article. We wonder why that is?), Fields was on-duty and riding his department motorcycle when he noticed a black man driving down a street while smoking a thin cigar. Mistakenly believing the cigar was marijuana, Fields pulled up beside the man, pointed his handgun at him, and a transcript of the incident records him as barking,
"Is smokin' your frickin' weed worth that? Put your hands on the dashboard. I'll frickin' blow you full of (expletive) holes, bitch".
After realizing his mistake, Fields apparently gave the man a ration of crap for smoking, and then proceeded to ride off with the parting words of "I'm trying to go home. Have a nice day".
This latest incident occurred approximately one year after Fields was charged with disorderly conduct for making inflammatory comments towards a woman while high on alcohol and painkillers at a salsa festival. (Fields was placed into a diversion program for that little escapade, naturally).
Fortunately for us Arizona residents, Fields resigned last September before this latest investigation into his outrageous actions was complete, and the POST board's subsequent stripping of his license pretty much guarantees that his law-enforcement career is over.
Now, for Lt. Warriner. After the article informs the readers that ex-Officer Fields was suspended a total of five times in his nine years with DPS, Warriner responds publicly that:
"Warriner said the number of incidents involving Fields wasn't particularly alarming, but the agency has started to put measures in place to identify problems with DPS officers before they reached a critical level."
WASN'T PARTICULARLY ALARMING? Fields averaged an unpaid suspension every 21 months during his tenure with DPS, and this goofball Warriner doesn't think that's "particularly alarming"? What, pray tell, would be, short of Fields actually being caught in the middle of committing a homicide?
One thing's for sure. Having Lt. Warriner as an agency spokesman isn't helping out DPS at all.
We've got news for the good lieutenant. The situation with Fields reached a "critical level" about three suspensions ago. We're still not sure if DPS was ever going to fire the rogue cop, except that the POST board apparently finally stepped in and said "enough is enough".
If Michael Fields represents the kind of "professional" that DPS believes should be wearing their uniform (and who is worthy of so many chances, at the expense of the public), our respect for that agency just fell into the basement.
The health-care shell game revealed
We didn't bother to watch the Messiah's monologue last night on his proposed government takeover of health care in this country because of the lack of invited opposing viewpoints, but reading a critique of it today, we came across a few interesting nuggets of analysis that only further support our theories about this little scheme of his.
First, Obama basically publicly admitted that "elites" such as himself and his family would get to play by different and much better rules than the rest of the peasants:
"[Dr. Orrin] Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
First, Obama basically publicly admitted that "elites" such as himself and his family would get to play by different and much better rules than the rest of the peasants:
"[Dr. Orrin] Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care'" (All emphases mine)
despite his stated intention to push "evidence-based medicine" and "best practices" rationing guidelines down the throat of everyone else:
"'There's a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, that every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier,' he said.
[host Charlie] Gibson interjected that often patients don't know what will work until they get every test they can.
'Oftentimes we know what makes sense and what doesn't,' the president responded, making a push for evidence-based medicine"
Exactly what we've been predicting. Forget about what the patient wants, and what their doctor may decide is the best course of diagnosis and treatment for that particular individual. Obama and the bureaucrats will determine what makes "sense" for you and your family, with cost as the primary decision factor (but not for his own relatives, presumably including the ones here illegally, of course. They get the Cadillac treatment that will be unavailable to everyone else).
Second, the Messiah also tacitly acknowledged that every single citizen will be forced to purchase health insurance whether or not they wish to obtain it, despite partly winning the Democratic Presidential nomination by mocking Hillary Clinton for proposing the exact same scenario:
"As a candidate, then-Sen. Obama bashed his rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, for proposing that Americans be mandated to have health insurance.
'She'd have the government force you to buy health insurance,' he said Feb. 23, 2008. 'I disagree with that approach. I believe that the reason Americans don't have health care isn't because no one's forced them to buy it, it's because no one's made it affordable.'
But now the president is acknowledging that his thinking on the issue has "evolved" and he could support a law mandating that individuals purchase health care coverage, with fines for those who do not."
The point keeps getting belabored around here, but we fail to spot the part of the Constitution that authorizes forcing people at gunpoint to buy something that they aren't interested in owning.
We can state unequivocally that we will never participate in Obama's socialized medicine scheme, no matter the penalties imposed upon us. We won't pay those, either.
A reasonable ruling from justices we usually don't agree with
The Supreme Court has agreed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by ruling 8-1 that the strip-search of a then-13-year-old Arizona girl by school officials who suspected her of possessing a couple of pills of ibuprofen, based on no other evidence than being pointed in her direction by another student who was busted with the contraband, goes just a wee bit too far.
We find ourselves in the rare position of agreeing with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
"'Abuse of authority of that order should not be shielded by official immunity,' Ginsburg wrote"
while begging to differ with the lone dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas:
"Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. 'Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment,' Thomas wrote."
So you're saying, Justice Thomas, that if school administrators unilaterally decide that, say, tying students up and duct-taping their mouths shut, or whacking them in the head with a paddle, or slipping a little muscle relaxant into their milk is the "best manner" for maintaining discipline in their classrooms, they're free to do so, and judges shouldn't intervene?
We respectfully disagree.
We find ourselves in the rare position of agreeing with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
"'Abuse of authority of that order should not be shielded by official immunity,' Ginsburg wrote"
while begging to differ with the lone dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas:
"Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. 'Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment,' Thomas wrote."
So you're saying, Justice Thomas, that if school administrators unilaterally decide that, say, tying students up and duct-taping their mouths shut, or whacking them in the head with a paddle, or slipping a little muscle relaxant into their milk is the "best manner" for maintaining discipline in their classrooms, they're free to do so, and judges shouldn't intervene?
We respectfully disagree.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Let's make sure we have this "straight"...
... no pun intended.
We've already been informed by society that it's a very bad, thoroughly inflammatory and racist act to call someone a "nigger" (We refuse to use the politically correct, mealy-mouthed phrase "the n-word", as we're having a frank discussion here, and we're all reasonable adults), unless the person using the word is a prominent black rap star, in which case it's apparently OK, as they're only "keeping it real". As a matter of fact, use of that word has been used to charge people who utter it during the commission of a crime with "hate crime" enhancements, as if committing a crime against a person of a different race were somehow worse than committing the exact same crime against a person in one's own racial group.
Well now, courtesy of prominent openly gay gossip columnist (and assault victim) Perez Hilton, we've also been informed that it's a very bad, thoroughly inflammatory and homophobic act to call someone a "faggot" and use of the word should be used to charge people who utter it during the commission of a crime with hate crime enhancements (Will this now be "the f-word"?), unless one is a prominent openly gay gossip columnist irritated at a presumably straight black male musician, of course. In that case it's apparently OK, as Hilton, in his infantile thinking, "thought it would be the worst thing he could possibly say".
Well, he pretty much got that one right, as his hateful words earned himself a sock in the face from the musician's tour manager the other night in Toronto, Canada.
Substituting one disgusting slur that denigrates an entire group of people for another isn't exactly what we would call "enlightenment" on your part, Mr. Hilton. We don't think you should have been assaulted for your poor choice of words, but you're definitely not helping out your fellow gays very much by your juvenile actions, which have exposed you as just another self-important, hypocritical "activist" who lives by their own "do as I say, not as I do" rules (See Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson). You have now officially given up any right to condemn anyone else who ever uses that word, sir, no matter in what context.
You may now go back to your important, life-changing day job of critiquing celebrities' outfits and dating choices.
UPDATE: We were seemingly prescient about the phrase "f-word" now joining its PC "n-word" comrade. From Hilton's apology, posted on his website:
"The "F" word will never be uttered from my lips again."
2 letters down, only 24 left that can be employed as code for words that have been deemed too dastardly to print, even if one is dispassionately discussing their use by someone else. Personally, we prefer that racists and homophobes be allowed to use whatever slurs they wish whenever they feel like it, as those microcephalic individuals are then much easier to spot.
We've already been informed by society that it's a very bad, thoroughly inflammatory and racist act to call someone a "nigger" (We refuse to use the politically correct, mealy-mouthed phrase "the n-word", as we're having a frank discussion here, and we're all reasonable adults), unless the person using the word is a prominent black rap star, in which case it's apparently OK, as they're only "keeping it real". As a matter of fact, use of that word has been used to charge people who utter it during the commission of a crime with "hate crime" enhancements, as if committing a crime against a person of a different race were somehow worse than committing the exact same crime against a person in one's own racial group.
Well now, courtesy of prominent openly gay gossip columnist (and assault victim) Perez Hilton, we've also been informed that it's a very bad, thoroughly inflammatory and homophobic act to call someone a "faggot" and use of the word should be used to charge people who utter it during the commission of a crime with hate crime enhancements (Will this now be "the f-word"?), unless one is a prominent openly gay gossip columnist irritated at a presumably straight black male musician, of course. In that case it's apparently OK, as Hilton, in his infantile thinking, "thought it would be the worst thing he could possibly say".
Well, he pretty much got that one right, as his hateful words earned himself a sock in the face from the musician's tour manager the other night in Toronto, Canada.
Substituting one disgusting slur that denigrates an entire group of people for another isn't exactly what we would call "enlightenment" on your part, Mr. Hilton. We don't think you should have been assaulted for your poor choice of words, but you're definitely not helping out your fellow gays very much by your juvenile actions, which have exposed you as just another self-important, hypocritical "activist" who lives by their own "do as I say, not as I do" rules (See Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson). You have now officially given up any right to condemn anyone else who ever uses that word, sir, no matter in what context.
You may now go back to your important, life-changing day job of critiquing celebrities' outfits and dating choices.
UPDATE: We were seemingly prescient about the phrase "f-word" now joining its PC "n-word" comrade. From Hilton's apology, posted on his website:
"The "F" word will never be uttered from my lips again."
2 letters down, only 24 left that can be employed as code for words that have been deemed too dastardly to print, even if one is dispassionately discussing their use by someone else. Personally, we prefer that racists and homophobes be allowed to use whatever slurs they wish whenever they feel like it, as those microcephalic individuals are then much easier to spot.
The media may be finally waking up to the unkept promises
At least one major media reporter, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, has noticed that the Emperor Messiah has no clothes, at least when it comes to his oft-repeated pledge of "transparency":
"Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, 'nothing has changed,' says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. 'For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies.'
The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama's much-publicized Jan. 21 "transparency" memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts." (Emphasis mine)
Just one more example of the many times that President Obama has condemned one of former President Bush's policies during his campaign, then turning right around and keeping it in place once he was comfortably in the Oval Office. We don't think that's the "Change we can believe in" his supporters had in mind when they swallowed the Messiah's unique line of bull.
"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss" - The Who
"Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, 'nothing has changed,' says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. 'For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies.'
The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama's much-publicized Jan. 21 "transparency" memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts." (Emphasis mine)
Just one more example of the many times that President Obama has condemned one of former President Bush's policies during his campaign, then turning right around and keeping it in place once he was comfortably in the Oval Office. We don't think that's the "Change we can believe in" his supporters had in mind when they swallowed the Messiah's unique line of bull.
"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss" - The Who
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The "blue halo" mysteriously continues to encircle his violent (and convicted) head
Anthony Abbate, the disgraced Chicago cop who was convicted of aggravated battery after being caught on videotape beating the snot out of a female bartender half his size who had apparently angered him by cutting him off for being intoxicated (and whose "blue wall of silence" indoctrinated on-duty colleagues "protected" him from media coverage by using marked squad cars to block reporters' access to one of his court appearances, and then threatened those same reporters with arrest when they complained), was sentenced today to - jail time?
Yeah, right.
Two years' probation plus anger management counseling, despite a prosecutorial request for jail time in the case:
"He taunted her, preened and showed his muscles, boasting, 'nobody tells me what to do,' [the prosecutors] said, in arguing for a prison sentence."
Remarkably, even after the DAs asked for Abbate to serve time in prison, the judge still saw fit to keep this animal on the streets with the rest of the city's law-abiding citizens. Thanks, Your Honor!
Abbate didn't even bother to apologize in court to his victim. In fact, his lawyer even blamed her for the altercation, in spite of ample video evidence to the contrary.
Any readers think any other regular ol' Chicago peasant man, convicted of such a well-documented and highly-publicized physical attack against an innocent woman, would get anywhere near the same sort of consideration from this judge (that would be Judge John J. Fleming, for you Illinois voters)? Yep, that peasant would most likely be sitting in Joliet right this minute, attempting to hide from the felons there who "preen and show their muscles" and announce that "nobody tells them what to do".
Incredibly, Abbate is still a member of the Chicago Police Department (and is presumably still being paid as such) despite his being convicted of a violent felony one full year ago, although today's news story reports that his status (finally) is “suspended pending separation". Don't rush to a hasty decision there, Chief Jody Weis. It's only taxpayer money, after all. Feel free to keep giving it out to convicted criminals who aren't working for you anymore. We're sure the people you "serve" don't mind one bit.
We're glad we ate lunch early today. We doubt we could consume anything right now, as we are quite nauseated.
Yeah, right.
Two years' probation plus anger management counseling, despite a prosecutorial request for jail time in the case:
"He taunted her, preened and showed his muscles, boasting, 'nobody tells me what to do,' [the prosecutors] said, in arguing for a prison sentence."
Remarkably, even after the DAs asked for Abbate to serve time in prison, the judge still saw fit to keep this animal on the streets with the rest of the city's law-abiding citizens. Thanks, Your Honor!
Abbate didn't even bother to apologize in court to his victim. In fact, his lawyer even blamed her for the altercation, in spite of ample video evidence to the contrary.
Any readers think any other regular ol' Chicago peasant man, convicted of such a well-documented and highly-publicized physical attack against an innocent woman, would get anywhere near the same sort of consideration from this judge (that would be Judge John J. Fleming, for you Illinois voters)? Yep, that peasant would most likely be sitting in Joliet right this minute, attempting to hide from the felons there who "preen and show their muscles" and announce that "nobody tells them what to do".
Incredibly, Abbate is still a member of the Chicago Police Department (and is presumably still being paid as such) despite his being convicted of a violent felony one full year ago, although today's news story reports that his status (finally) is “suspended pending separation". Don't rush to a hasty decision there, Chief Jody Weis. It's only taxpayer money, after all. Feel free to keep giving it out to convicted criminals who aren't working for you anymore. We're sure the people you "serve" don't mind one bit.
We're glad we ate lunch early today. We doubt we could consume anything right now, as we are quite nauseated.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Why I carry a handgun for protection, Vol. 17
So that if I happen to be minding my own business in a busy Denny's restaurant in Albuquerque, New Mexico at 9:30 on a Saturday morning, and six armed individuals happen to enter and shoot up the place in a robbery attempt, killing a teenage female employee in the process, I will be able to at least try to defend that server, along with myself and the rest of the law-abiding patrons who were only there to enjoy a weekend breakfast, from those violent, sociopathic thugs.
This horrifying incident once again starkly illustrates the fact that violent crime can happen to innocent victims anywhere at anytime, regardless of the vigorous denials of reality from the likes of Sarah Brady, the Violence Policy Center and their ilk. Should something like this (God forbid) ever happen to you, that handgun you left locked in your safe or lying on your bedside table isn't going to do you much good from afar, is it?
Carry responsibly and safely, and carry everywhere you legally can.
This horrifying incident once again starkly illustrates the fact that violent crime can happen to innocent victims anywhere at anytime, regardless of the vigorous denials of reality from the likes of Sarah Brady, the Violence Policy Center and their ilk. Should something like this (God forbid) ever happen to you, that handgun you left locked in your safe or lying on your bedside table isn't going to do you much good from afar, is it?
Carry responsibly and safely, and carry everywhere you legally can.
Those scientists must not be getting any
The National Institutes of Health is "investing" 423,500 of the peasantry's hard-earned tax dollars, confiscated from us on pain of imprisonment, in order to fund a study designed to find out
"why men don't like to wear condoms"
Sigh.
Because sex feels better without them, dummies.
There. Half a million bucks or so of our money just saved from being flushed down the institutional research toilet.
"why men don't like to wear condoms"
Sigh.
Because sex feels better without them, dummies.
There. Half a million bucks or so of our money just saved from being flushed down the institutional research toilet.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
He's missing the "point", literally and figuratively
An English industrial designer named John Cornock, inspired by the impassioned pleas of some of the doctors in that model nanny-state who are agitating for a total ban on the sale of "long, pointy" kitchen knives in Britain, due to their high rate of usage by criminals for muggings and robberies in that country (despite, of course, England's complete ban on carrying knives in public, along with their recent widely-publicized "knife amnesty" campaign, which have both worked out so well to date), has come up with what he thinks is an innovative solution - the "anti-stab" knife:
(www.newpointknives.co.uk)
(www.newpointknives.co.uk)This novel invention would indeed seem to curtail the stabbing of victims, but unfortunately not the slicing of them, which is just as deadly. Maybe Mr. Cornock forgot about that little fact whilst he was brainstorming his groundbreaking design.
"He said: 'It can never be a totally safe knife, but the idea is you can’t inflict a fatal wound. Nobody could just grab one out of the kitchen drawer and kill someone.'"
Wanna bet? You stand over there, Mr. Cornock, while we test your theory. Oh, you're declining? We kind of figured you would.
The new cutlery is bargain-priced at a low, low $63-83 each, practically guaranteeing that the thugs and criminals over there who didn't obey the law (imagine that?) and surrender their contraband cutlery three years ago will immediately toss out or turn in their perfectly good stabbin' instruments and run out to be among the first to purchase this updated design. Similarly, the good inventor must also be assuming that the government will concomitantly be banning grinding wheels and files, since ne'er do wells could use those commonly available tools to put sharp points on his knives in minutes.
Next up for Mr. Cornock- the designing of anti-crush rocks and anti-poke sticks, ensuring that the law-abiding English peasant continues to remain completely defenseless against the criminal element running wild over there.
"He said: 'It can never be a totally safe knife, but the idea is you can’t inflict a fatal wound. Nobody could just grab one out of the kitchen drawer and kill someone.'"
Wanna bet? You stand over there, Mr. Cornock, while we test your theory. Oh, you're declining? We kind of figured you would.
The new cutlery is bargain-priced at a low, low $63-83 each, practically guaranteeing that the thugs and criminals over there who didn't obey the law (imagine that?) and surrender their contraband cutlery three years ago will immediately toss out or turn in their perfectly good stabbin' instruments and run out to be among the first to purchase this updated design. Similarly, the good inventor must also be assuming that the government will concomitantly be banning grinding wheels and files, since ne'er do wells could use those commonly available tools to put sharp points on his knives in minutes.
Next up for Mr. Cornock- the designing of anti-crush rocks and anti-poke sticks, ensuring that the law-abiding English peasant continues to remain completely defenseless against the criminal element running wild over there.
Yep, we're still hanging around...
... patiently and politely waiting for our "formal response" from U.S. Marshal David Gonzales.
(And yes, we are still of the opinion that the subject of this search, Deputy Marshal Jennifer Harkins, needs to be disciplined for her unprofessional behavior, specifically her rudeness in not returning our polite phone messages seeking an update on our original complaint about being rousted by federal court security officers for merely participating in lawful behavior on a public sidewalk.)
Friday, June 19, 2009
He doesn't deserve a break today
An off-duty Denver cop has been suspended and is facing possible "felony menacing" charges after a confirmed incident in which he allegedly flashed his badge and then pointed his pistol at a McDonald's drive-thru employee in Aurora, Colorado. This shining example of the kind of highly-trained "special people" that organizations such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center constantly screech to us are the "only ones professional enough to carry firearms in public" apparently decided that the restaurant was taking too long in processing his order, and instead of going inside to complain to the manager like regular people do he subsequently started to throw his highly unprofessional (and unforgivably dangerous) little hissy fit.
Of course, this mental midget has not been arrested to date, and his identity has conveniently not been divulged. Compare this sort of treatment with what would have happened had the irate customer been one of us common peasants. If we had done something anywhere similar to what this man has been accused of, we would have been promptly placed into custody at gunpoint, and our name and booking photo would have (rightly) been plastered all over the media. How come Officer McTemper doesn't get the same treatment?
It's situations such as these, which tend to give the appearance that there are two kinds of justice in society depending on what one does for a living, that make ordinary people so cynical and untrusting of all people in law enforcement, even though the vast majority of cops are good, service-oriented professionals. The odious official coddling and protection of a bad apple by their colleagues only serves to ruin the reputations of everyone else in a police department by association, and the sooner the senior brass understand that fact, the better.
Of course, this mental midget has not been arrested to date, and his identity has conveniently not been divulged. Compare this sort of treatment with what would have happened had the irate customer been one of us common peasants. If we had done something anywhere similar to what this man has been accused of, we would have been promptly placed into custody at gunpoint, and our name and booking photo would have (rightly) been plastered all over the media. How come Officer McTemper doesn't get the same treatment?
It's situations such as these, which tend to give the appearance that there are two kinds of justice in society depending on what one does for a living, that make ordinary people so cynical and untrusting of all people in law enforcement, even though the vast majority of cops are good, service-oriented professionals. The odious official coddling and protection of a bad apple by their colleagues only serves to ruin the reputations of everyone else in a police department by association, and the sooner the senior brass understand that fact, the better.
Seems like the correct decision, at least to us
Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has taken the quite reasonable position that since
1. The upcoming Census is in the process of being completely politicized by the Messiah, who is moving responsibility for the upcoming project from career (and presumably non-partisan) Commerce Department employees to directly under the partisan supervision of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel;
2. "Advocacy" groups such as ACORN, which is under federal investigation for voter registration fraud in upwards of 15 states, will apparently be allowed to participate in the door-to-door canvassing operation, despite the organization's long track record of blatant data falsification;
3. The Census has metastasized far beyond its original intent, which was to count the number of citizens of America and where they live for Congressional apportionment purposes. It now intrusively inquires into all facets of a given person's life, for example where one works and how they get there, how much money one makes at their job, one's health and disability status, how much one's mortgage is and what language a family chooses to converse with in their house;
4. The Constitution only explicitly states that "[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.", and a reasonable person could conclude that the amount of privacy-stripping questions now being asked by census-takers certainly is far more than merely an "enumeration";
the representative is only going to respond with the number of people in her household address, as she correctly notes is the only answer that is Constitutionally mandated.
Of course as one might expect, the government apparatchiks down at the Census Bureau aren't very happy with this announcement:
"Shelly Lowe, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau, said Mrs. Bachmann is "misreading" the law... She sent a portion of the U.S. legal code that says anyone over 18 years of age who refuses to answer "any of the questions" on the census can be fined up to $5,000."
A five-figure fine for declining to report how many bathrooms are in one's abode? Seems a little excessive and unnecessarily punitive, don't you think?
Well, the bureaucrats had better get their ticket-pads warmed up, because that response is exactly what we've been advocating for quite some time, and Ms. Bachmann's joining our way of thinking only steels our resolve to follow through with our decision, which is to not give out the intimate details of our lives just because some government snoop wants them.
1. The upcoming Census is in the process of being completely politicized by the Messiah, who is moving responsibility for the upcoming project from career (and presumably non-partisan) Commerce Department employees to directly under the partisan supervision of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel;
2. "Advocacy" groups such as ACORN, which is under federal investigation for voter registration fraud in upwards of 15 states, will apparently be allowed to participate in the door-to-door canvassing operation, despite the organization's long track record of blatant data falsification;
3. The Census has metastasized far beyond its original intent, which was to count the number of citizens of America and where they live for Congressional apportionment purposes. It now intrusively inquires into all facets of a given person's life, for example where one works and how they get there, how much money one makes at their job, one's health and disability status, how much one's mortgage is and what language a family chooses to converse with in their house;
4. The Constitution only explicitly states that "[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.", and a reasonable person could conclude that the amount of privacy-stripping questions now being asked by census-takers certainly is far more than merely an "enumeration";
the representative is only going to respond with the number of people in her household address, as she correctly notes is the only answer that is Constitutionally mandated.
Of course as one might expect, the government apparatchiks down at the Census Bureau aren't very happy with this announcement:
"Shelly Lowe, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau, said Mrs. Bachmann is "misreading" the law... She sent a portion of the U.S. legal code that says anyone over 18 years of age who refuses to answer "any of the questions" on the census can be fined up to $5,000."
A five-figure fine for declining to report how many bathrooms are in one's abode? Seems a little excessive and unnecessarily punitive, don't you think?
Well, the bureaucrats had better get their ticket-pads warmed up, because that response is exactly what we've been advocating for quite some time, and Ms. Bachmann's joining our way of thinking only steels our resolve to follow through with our decision, which is to not give out the intimate details of our lives just because some government snoop wants them.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
That pretty much confirms our suspicions about her
Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor, meeting with South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, manages to not answer a direct and simple question concerning the Second Amendment:
"She was unwilling to say the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans, which raises serious questions about her view of the Bill of Rights."
We would hope for general agreement on the idea that someone who holds the opinion that any or all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to all Americans (regardless of which of the ten we're discussing) should immediately be disqualified from serving in the institution that serves as the court of last resort for upholding and protecting those very rights.
(h/t: Dustin)
"She was unwilling to say the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans, which raises serious questions about her view of the Bill of Rights."
We would hope for general agreement on the idea that someone who holds the opinion that any or all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to all Americans (regardless of which of the ten we're discussing) should immediately be disqualified from serving in the institution that serves as the court of last resort for upholding and protecting those very rights.
(h/t: Dustin)
Not exactly a profile in "courage", if you ask us
The firing of Americorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin was apparently an "act of political courage" on the part of the Messiah.
How do we know this? Just ask the Obama White House, and they'll reassure you of that fact themselves.
What complete hubris.
In other news, it looks like another inspector general, this time at the International Trade Commission, was canned last week, three hours after Republican Senator Charles Grassley sent the ITC a letter inquiring about allegations of agency employees preventing the IG from properly doing her job:
"Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government's top watchdogs -- whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse -- is being put at risk."
Uh, gee, you think?
It seems that it's quite a dangeous time to be an IG these days, at least for those few who are bravely standing up to the Obama Express.
How do we know this? Just ask the Obama White House, and they'll reassure you of that fact themselves.
What complete hubris.
In other news, it looks like another inspector general, this time at the International Trade Commission, was canned last week, three hours after Republican Senator Charles Grassley sent the ITC a letter inquiring about allegations of agency employees preventing the IG from properly doing her job:
"Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government's top watchdogs -- whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse -- is being put at risk."
Uh, gee, you think?
It seems that it's quite a dangeous time to be an IG these days, at least for those few who are bravely standing up to the Obama Express.
What an unbelievably rude act from one of our "leaders"
The general won't say it, but we will:
Cram it, ma'am.
Today's TASER Travesty
Who should we believe - the Queensland, Australia police who swear up and down that they only TASED a suspect (who died during the struggle to arrest him) three times, or the weapon itself, which self-reported that it was discharged 28 times during the altercation?
Don't bother asking the local police union, as they've already picked which story they're going with, despite the investigation being nowhere near completed:
"Further testing is being done but the police union is standing by the officer who fired the weapon."
Naturally.
Ditto for the police brass, who certainly aren't breaking any records in getting details about the incident out to the public:
"Deputy Commissioner Stewart would not comment on whether Mr Galeano was handcuffed when he was tasered."
Which pretty much makes us think we already know the answer to that particular question.
Acting union president Ian Leavers has seemingly come up with a neat solution to prevent such conundrums in the future:
"Mr Leavers has called on the State Government to immediately free up funds to install camera attachments on all Tasers."
Why bother? You're only going to do everything possible to get that kind of data summarily discounted or ignored as well once it inconveniently looks like the footage is going to show misconduct on the part of your officers, much like the TASER discharge report is apparently doing in this case.
Technology isn't a one-way street. The same evidence that's used in court to convict people of crimes must also be accepted as proof of police wrongdoing when warranted, and not just summarily (and conveniently) thrown out as "glitches".
Don't bother asking the local police union, as they've already picked which story they're going with, despite the investigation being nowhere near completed:
"Further testing is being done but the police union is standing by the officer who fired the weapon."
Naturally.
Ditto for the police brass, who certainly aren't breaking any records in getting details about the incident out to the public:
"Deputy Commissioner Stewart would not comment on whether Mr Galeano was handcuffed when he was tasered."
Which pretty much makes us think we already know the answer to that particular question.
Acting union president Ian Leavers has seemingly come up with a neat solution to prevent such conundrums in the future:
"Mr Leavers has called on the State Government to immediately free up funds to install camera attachments on all Tasers."
Why bother? You're only going to do everything possible to get that kind of data summarily discounted or ignored as well once it inconveniently looks like the footage is going to show misconduct on the part of your officers, much like the TASER discharge report is apparently doing in this case.
Technology isn't a one-way street. The same evidence that's used in court to convict people of crimes must also be accepted as proof of police wrongdoing when warranted, and not just summarily (and conveniently) thrown out as "glitches".
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
A step towards school sanity
"Gov. Charlie Crist will visit Robert E. Lee Senior High School Wednesday, June 17, to sign Senate Bill 1540, which requires school boards to revise their zero-tolerance policies to ensure that students expelled or referred to law enforcement pose a serious threat to school safety, and are not expelled or arrested for petty misconduct."
Petty misconduct that nationally has resulted in such completely overreaching disciplinary actions as:
The first grader caught with a set of scary nail clippers on his person (expelled);
Or the high-school girl who brought a dull butter knife to school in order to spread peanut butter on her toast (expelled);
Or the honor student who took her dreaded prescribed birth-control pill at lunchtime all by herself, instead of adhering to the humiliating policy of having to turn in all of her meds to the school nurse each day (suspended 2 weeks, recommendation for expulsion);
And, of course, the recently publicized case of a girl who got nailed for having one of those deadly eyebrow shavers in her handbag (expelled).
It looks like, at least in one state, the epidemic of these kinds of draconian, out-of-all-proportion punishments, robotically imposed by automaton administrators who aren't allowed to think for themselves, will soon be ending.
We hope that other states will soon join Florida and revise their own zero-tolerance rules.
Petty misconduct that nationally has resulted in such completely overreaching disciplinary actions as:
The first grader caught with a set of scary nail clippers on his person (expelled);
Or the high-school girl who brought a dull butter knife to school in order to spread peanut butter on her toast (expelled);
Or the honor student who took her dreaded prescribed birth-control pill at lunchtime all by herself, instead of adhering to the humiliating policy of having to turn in all of her meds to the school nurse each day (suspended 2 weeks, recommendation for expulsion);
And, of course, the recently publicized case of a girl who got nailed for having one of those deadly eyebrow shavers in her handbag (expelled).
It looks like, at least in one state, the epidemic of these kinds of draconian, out-of-all-proportion punishments, robotically imposed by automaton administrators who aren't allowed to think for themselves, will soon be ending.
We hope that other states will soon join Florida and revise their own zero-tolerance rules.
Another example of today's type of state-run television
The ABC television network not only is declining to offer any opposing points of view during its upcoming propaganda piece "White House health care presentation" on June 24, it's refusing to allow a group opposed to nationalized health care to buy a 60-second national advertisement and air it just before the special.
But we're promised that it won't be an "infomercial". Yeah, right.
Between this stunt and NBC's own exclusive little White House "access" party the other week, the propaganda's getting so overwhelmingly blatant that even the networks' own news journalists are beginning to get a little uncomfortable with these convenient little arrangements:
"'I think it's pretty obvious politics,' said Jay DeDapper, a veteran political reporter for WABC/Ch. 7 and WNBC/Ch. 4.
But we're promised that it won't be an "infomercial". Yeah, right.
Between this stunt and NBC's own exclusive little White House "access" party the other week, the propaganda's getting so overwhelmingly blatant that even the networks' own news journalists are beginning to get a little uncomfortable with these convenient little arrangements:
"'I think it's pretty obvious politics,' said Jay DeDapper, a veteran political reporter for WABC/Ch. 7 and WNBC/Ch. 4.
'When NBC essentially did a version of [MTV's] 'Cribs' in the White House a few weeks back under the guise of news, the GOP said nothing, leaving it to Jon Stewart to point out the obvious - there was no news value at all - it was a promotional stunt by NBC News accommodated by a White House happy to use the network to advance the administration's political goals.'
'In this case," DeDapper said, "the RNC is finally doing what it should, from the political point of view, have done then.'"
We don't know what current ad rates are, but if we were shareholders in Disney/ABC, we'd be quite irate that they are turning down badly-needed revenue for such a partisan reason.Off topic but interesting, at least to me
The overhaul of the Nova's engine was completed over the weekend (Not by us, of course. We have the mechanical ability of a drunken monkey):
Now we're cooking with gas.
Now we're cooking with gas.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
"Transparency" apparently means only what the Messiah says it does
"Obama blocks list of visitors to White House"
"Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public", to boot.
Who else thinks it's vitally important for the public to be able to know exactly who comes calling on our President in order to lobby him on issues or ask for "favors"?
To be fair, Bush 43 had the exact same policy, and we didn't agree with it then, either. We thought, though, that President Obama was going to usher in a fantastic new era of "transparency", in stark contrast to his predecessor's penchant for secrecy, which the Messiah decried on a regular basis?
"'It's great that President Obama made this commitment to transparency,' [nonpartisan watchdog group CREW attorney Anne L.] Weismann said. 'But now you need to make good on it.'"
Don't hold your breath, ma'am.
"Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public", to boot.
Who else thinks it's vitally important for the public to be able to know exactly who comes calling on our President in order to lobby him on issues or ask for "favors"?
To be fair, Bush 43 had the exact same policy, and we didn't agree with it then, either. We thought, though, that President Obama was going to usher in a fantastic new era of "transparency", in stark contrast to his predecessor's penchant for secrecy, which the Messiah decried on a regular basis?
"'It's great that President Obama made this commitment to transparency,' [nonpartisan watchdog group CREW attorney Anne L.] Weismann said. 'But now you need to make good on it.'"
Don't hold your breath, ma'am.
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
...are NYPD detectives Stephen Anderson and Henry Tavarez, for arresting two brothers on charges of selling cocaine to the undercover cops in a Queens nightclub.
There's just one small problem - security camera footage from both inside and outside the club definitively prove that the crimes alleged by the officers never happened. In fact, the officers never interacted with the brothers at all on the date in question:
"What the tape doesn't show is striking: At no point did the officers interact with the undercovers, nor did the brothers appear to be involved in a drug deal with anyone else. Adding insult to injury, an outside camera taped the undercovers literally dancing down the street."
Based on this incontrovertible evidence, the two brothers were cleared of all charges, and Anderson and Tavarez have been charged with multiple crimes (including drug dealing of their own, oddly enough), although the NYPD isn't helping much with bringing them to justice:
"New York Police Department officials have downplayed their case"
Most likely because the two crooked cops aren't the only NYPD officers caught in such circumstances lately:
"On May 13, another NYPD officer was arrested for plotting to invade a Manhattan apartment where he hoped to steal $900,000 in drug money. In another pending case, prosecutors in Brooklyn say officers were caught in a 2007 sting using seized drugs to reward a snitch for information. And in the Bronx, prosecutors have charged a detective with lying about a drug bust captured on a surveillance tape that contradicts her story."
These cases, combined with the very similar case we've commented on recently involving the Philadelphia PD narcotics squad accused of shaking down convenience store owners by executing search warrants that were solely based on outright lies by those officers, only cement more tightly in our mind the futility of continuing the War on Drugs, as well as (unfortunately) once again proving the value of audio and/or video taping one's every interaction with police, in order to protect oneself from the sorts of false accusations of criminal acts by rogue cops that are apparently rampant in certain police departments in this country.
There's just one small problem - security camera footage from both inside and outside the club definitively prove that the crimes alleged by the officers never happened. In fact, the officers never interacted with the brothers at all on the date in question:
"What the tape doesn't show is striking: At no point did the officers interact with the undercovers, nor did the brothers appear to be involved in a drug deal with anyone else. Adding insult to injury, an outside camera taped the undercovers literally dancing down the street."
Based on this incontrovertible evidence, the two brothers were cleared of all charges, and Anderson and Tavarez have been charged with multiple crimes (including drug dealing of their own, oddly enough), although the NYPD isn't helping much with bringing them to justice:
"New York Police Department officials have downplayed their case"
Most likely because the two crooked cops aren't the only NYPD officers caught in such circumstances lately:
"On May 13, another NYPD officer was arrested for plotting to invade a Manhattan apartment where he hoped to steal $900,000 in drug money. In another pending case, prosecutors in Brooklyn say officers were caught in a 2007 sting using seized drugs to reward a snitch for information. And in the Bronx, prosecutors have charged a detective with lying about a drug bust captured on a surveillance tape that contradicts her story."
These cases, combined with the very similar case we've commented on recently involving the Philadelphia PD narcotics squad accused of shaking down convenience store owners by executing search warrants that were solely based on outright lies by those officers, only cement more tightly in our mind the futility of continuing the War on Drugs, as well as (unfortunately) once again proving the value of audio and/or video taping one's every interaction with police, in order to protect oneself from the sorts of false accusations of criminal acts by rogue cops that are apparently rampant in certain police departments in this country.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Just ignore her; maybe she'll go away
A few photographers recently headed in a group down to the Port of Long Beach, California, a place where some of their colleagues in the past have been harassed by cops for taking perfectly lawful pictures from public places, and began filming one of the local refineries from a public sidewalk. A female private security goon soon shows up and tells them (wrongly) that it's illegal to photograph the refinery, and when questioned about exactly which law it is that they're breaking, actually states "I don't care about the law".
We especially enjoyed the moment at 0:33 when the photographers began taking still pictures of her, after which she began waving her hands in front of her face like a perturbed starlet being hounded by the paparazzi.
(Carlos Miller link)
We especially enjoyed the moment at 0:33 when the photographers began taking still pictures of her, after which she began waving her hands in front of her face like a perturbed starlet being hounded by the paparazzi.
(Carlos Miller link)
A Canadian educated in England warns us about adopting socialized medicine
Mark Steyn points out that the only way for the Messiah to achieve his stated goal of reducing health care costs by installing the beginnings of his dream single-payer (i.e. government monopolized) system is to ration the only cost in the entire scheme that isn't fixed - the health care itself:
"When President Obama tells you he’s “reforming” health care to “control costs,” the point to remember is that the only way to “control costs” in health care is to have less of it. In a government system, the doctor, the nurse, the janitor, and the Assistant Deputy Associate Director of Cost-Control System Management all have to be paid every Friday, so the sole means of “controlling costs” is to restrict the patient’s access to treatment. In the Province of Quebec, patients with severe incontinence — i.e., they’re in the bathroom twelve times a night — wait three years for a simple 30-minute procedure. True, Quebeckers have a year or two on Americans in the life-expectancy hit parade, but, if you’re making twelve trips a night to the john 365 times a year for three years, in terms of life-spent-outside-the-bathroom expectancy, an uninsured Vermonter may actually come out ahead."
Are you ready for a system in which concepts such as "best practices guidelines" and "cost efficiencies" are the paramount factors, and which will always matter more than the decisions of both the physician and the patient, only to ultimately fail to prevent the whole shebang from becoming as big a failure as England's NHS?
"The British National Health Service is the biggest employer not just in the United Kingdom, but in the whole of Europe."
Yep, they've got themselves a real shining success over there worth emulating, eh?
"When President Obama tells you he’s “reforming” health care to “control costs,” the point to remember is that the only way to “control costs” in health care is to have less of it. In a government system, the doctor, the nurse, the janitor, and the Assistant Deputy Associate Director of Cost-Control System Management all have to be paid every Friday, so the sole means of “controlling costs” is to restrict the patient’s access to treatment. In the Province of Quebec, patients with severe incontinence — i.e., they’re in the bathroom twelve times a night — wait three years for a simple 30-minute procedure. True, Quebeckers have a year or two on Americans in the life-expectancy hit parade, but, if you’re making twelve trips a night to the john 365 times a year for three years, in terms of life-spent-outside-the-bathroom expectancy, an uninsured Vermonter may actually come out ahead."
Are you ready for a system in which concepts such as "best practices guidelines" and "cost efficiencies" are the paramount factors, and which will always matter more than the decisions of both the physician and the patient, only to ultimately fail to prevent the whole shebang from becoming as big a failure as England's NHS?
"The British National Health Service is the biggest employer not just in the United Kingdom, but in the whole of Europe."
Yep, they've got themselves a real shining success over there worth emulating, eh?
What an utter slob
U.S. Representative Laura Richardson, D(isgusting property owner)-California, has plenty of time to go hobnob with murderous dictators such as Fidel Castro (as she did in April), but she just can't seem to find a couple of hours to deal with the condition of her home in Sacramento, which is being described by her neighbors as "horrifying". In fact, they've pretty much had to perform routine maintenance on the place themselves, just to prevent their own houses from being damaged by Richardson's negligence:
"Carrie Thomsen would walk across the street with her hose and water the yard. Janet Carlson sent her gardener to Richardson's house once a month for six months to mow the lawn. She paid kids $20 during the fall to rake the leaves. They once peeked inside and saw a dead bird in the living room. Her husband turned on the sprinklers the last two summers, worried that dry weeds would turn into a fire hazard.
"Carrie Thomsen would walk across the street with her hose and water the yard. Janet Carlson sent her gardener to Richardson's house once a month for six months to mow the lawn. She paid kids $20 during the fall to rake the leaves. They once peeked inside and saw a dead bird in the living room. Her husband turned on the sprinklers the last two summers, worried that dry weeds would turn into a fire hazard.
Things got so bad that in the fall, rats began breeding in Richardson's backyard and soon moved into a house next door." (Emphasis mine)
Maybe she wishes to duplicate the squalid conditions that currently predominate in Havana right there in her own neighborhood, in some sort of solidarity with Uncle Fidel.
Ironically, most of the neighbors interviewed for the story seem to be like-minded liberal Democrats who supported and voted for Richardson, who, oddly enough, only moved into the Sacramento house in 2006, after she was elected to the California Assembly to represent Long Beach. She was then elected to the U.S. Congress in 2007 through a special election, and seems to have abandoned her central California constituents just as quickly as she dumped her Long Beach peasants. Judging from her home's condition, she has no intention of ever returning to her (newish) old digs, save for campaign appearances, now that she's reached the Promised Land of Washington, D.C.
(Shades of Tom Daschle, who homesteaded his house in Washington, certifying that his mansion there was his primary residence instead of any residence in South Dakota, while at the same time purporting to represent that state in the Senate. He apparently thought that he would also never again have to slum it and live outside of D.C., until John Thune knocked him off in 2004.)
And yet the supposedly "responsible" Richardson presumes to be one of the Messiah's dictators who would micromanage every tiny aspect of everyone's home lives if they could only manage to do so, yet who doesn't wish to be bothered with such mundane details herself.
What blatant hypocrisy, even for one of today's elected officials.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
How are all those promises of “change” coming along?
“Words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up” – Presidential candidate Barack Obama, September 6, 2008
1. Victor Davis Hanson reminds us of how the Messiah made all sorts of promises and guarantees during his election campaign, and how he’s now backtracked on almost every single one of them, including
“renditions, military tribunals, intercepts, wiretaps, Predator drone attacks, the release of interrogation photos, Iraq (and, I think, soon Guantanamo Bay)”
without Obama ever once being prodded by the lapdog media into admitting that he is indeed not keeping his word on those issues, the very ones that he deemed so critical last fall.
2. Let’s also look at the Messiah’s promise to not increase taxes “one dime” on those making under $250,000, shall we?
Hmmm. Where to start on this one, where to start...
Well, how about the House’s health care proposal, which Obama seemingly supports wholeheartedly? That boondoggle will immediately add another 600 billion dollars in spending on top of the 2.6 trillion dollars or so of new expenditures in the short time since Obama took office, and even Charlie “Caribbean Tax Shelter” Rangel admits that the true cost of this health scheme will likely top 1 trillion dollars all by itself before long.
Or how about the cap-and-trade bill also currently rocketing through Congress, which is estimated to cost the average American family (which earns significantly less than $250,000 annually, the last time we checked) $3900 more a year in “carbon taxes”, according to MIT professor John Reilly, who champions the theory of human-caused climate change, which has yet to be proven. (The Weekly Standard points out that Reilly insists that only $800 of this is truly robbed from families, and that the $3128 difference is somehow returned to them at some point, although he doesn’t elaborate just how that would happen, only that “no matter what happens this revenue gets recycled into the economy some way”. Presumably by giving it away to someone else, most likely. Those families who pay the thousands in a nebulous “carbon tax” will never see that dough again, and Reilly knows it.)
Additionally, President Obama signed the tobacco bill (which increases taxes on such products) into law yesterday, which by all accounts will impact lower-income families significantly more than higher-earning ones, due to the increased rate of smoking among those in the lower earnings brackets. Which brings us to
3. Remember that whole business about “transparency”, a key part of which was Obama’s promise to post bills passed by Congress on the White House web site for 5 days before signing, in order to allow the public to read and comment on the legislation?
Total number of bills signed into law by Obama: 12 (including the tobacco bill signed yesterday)
Total number posted on the White House web site for 5 days before signing, as promised during the Messiah’s campaign: 0
Yep, it didn’t happen with this tobacco bill, either. Obama signed the bill one day after it was passed by the Senate, breaking yet another campaign promise, unless one considers this bill some sort of “emergency”, because he exempted bills so labeled from his pledge. We don’t know about everyone else, but we don’t consider getting words such as “light” and “mild” off cigarette packs and controlling the level of nicotine in tobacco products to be a screaming crisis.
While we’re on the subject of transparency, we’re betting that you haven’t heard the news that
4. Obama has announced in a letter to Congress that he is going to fire AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin. The current theory on Walpin’s sacking, according to Byron York of the Washington Examiner, seems to be that Walpin is being canned solely for investigating a non-profit organization called St. Hope, which is affiliated with AmeriCorps (St. Hope was started by Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter and ex-NBA star who is currently mayor of Sacramento, California), and forcing the charity to pay back $400,000 in grant money from AmeriCorps. As York sums it up,
“The bottom line is that the AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money. After an investigation, the prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. And Obama fired the AmeriCorps IG.”
Curiously, York reports that Obama gives no reason for the firing other than that he no longer has the “fullest confidence” in Walpin. Unfortunately for the president, that vague statement most likely is no longer good enough, as the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act (ironically co-sponsored by, you guessed it, the Messiah himself) “requires the president to outline the cause for his decision to remove an IG.” Presumably “I’m no longer fully confident in you” doesn’t count as cause.
In addition, the IGRA requires that the president give 30 days’ notice to both houses of Congress before a firing of an IG takes place, a process Obama seems to have tried to skirt by having White House lackey lawyer Norm Eisen (whose antics we’ve previously commented on) call Walpin “on his cell phone to tell him he had one hour to resign or be fired”, presumably to avoid that legally-mandated Congressional notification. To his credit, Walpin refused to quit on demand in an email to Eisen, and also “noted that Eisen had said any appearance of a connection between Walpin's firing and recent conflicts over Walpin's handing of high-profile investigations was ‘coincidence.’” (Emphasis mine)
This seems to be just the sort of heavy-handed, secretive and official process running-around tactics that Obama (mostly correctly) took the Bush Administration so much to task for last fall. Why, then, is he allowing the same sort of dictator-like games to be played under his watch?
5. Remember how Obama vehemently protested that he wasn’t the least interested in limiting the pay of company heads who weren’t participating in the federal bailout? Yeah, that’s been quietly changed, too:
“The administration plans to seek legislation that would try to rein in compensation at publicly traded companies through nonbinding shareholder votes and by decreasing management influence on pay decisions”
If the Messiah gets his way, companies who trade publicly will no longer be able to compensate employees however they see fit; rather, they will presumably only be able pay executives, regardless of their performance or value to a given company, what the government says they can.
Does that sound like economic freedom to you? It sure doesn’t to us. The American dream is about achieving as much as one wishes to by using their own individual effort, and certainly not artificially limiting that success because it somehow isn’t “fair” to everyone else. That type of economy failed miserably in Soviet Russia because of the utter lack of incentives and rewards for hard work, and it will undoubtedly fail if tried here.
That’s more than enough chronicling of the Litany of Broken Messianic Promises for today, although we’re sure we could find numerous other examples quite easily, should we choose to look around a little more. We do have one small ray of light, however. Apparently even execrable Obama champion Bill Maher is getting a little tired of the “All Obama, all the time” fawning media coverage:
“Remember during the campaign when John McCain attacked Obama for acting like a celebrity and we all laughed at the grumpy old shell shocked fool? Well, it turns out he was right.”
Thank God at least one of the Messiah’s celebrity sycophants is beginning to observe how over-the-top inappropriate the sucking-up to Obama by the media has been. Now if only some of the ordinary peasants who voted for him will begin to see the mistake they’ve unleashed on the country, we’ll really be getting somewhere.
Friday, June 12, 2009
That city actually got off quite cheaply
Six Jacksonville, Florida police officers have been fired from the force. That number of cops being dismissed all at once is unusual in itself, but the real story is when in their careers they were let go, as all six were canned for "conduct unbecoming an officer" one day after graduating from the police academy and being awarded their badges.
According to the story, a fellow recruit made allegations of improper conduct on the part of the trainees, which under investigation were apparently proven to be accurate. (The allegations haven't been made public; we suspect that it probably had something to do with academic dishonesty, given the setting.)
Kudos to that recruit for being brave and principled enough to take a stand against allowing his fellow trainees to display such official misconduct before they were even done with their training, and special "props" must go to Sheriff John Rutherford for not allowing such tainted officers to spend even one day in his department.
As always, though, a representative from the ubiquitous police union has to pipe up and proceed to embarrass themselves and their profession in a spectacular manner:
"Fraternal Order of Police President Nelson Cuba said typical recruits train for at least six months and the sheriff's offices spends a minimum of $50,000-$60,000 per person to train the recruits.
According to the story, a fellow recruit made allegations of improper conduct on the part of the trainees, which under investigation were apparently proven to be accurate. (The allegations haven't been made public; we suspect that it probably had something to do with academic dishonesty, given the setting.)
Kudos to that recruit for being brave and principled enough to take a stand against allowing his fellow trainees to display such official misconduct before they were even done with their training, and special "props" must go to Sheriff John Rutherford for not allowing such tainted officers to spend even one day in his department.
As always, though, a representative from the ubiquitous police union has to pipe up and proceed to embarrass themselves and their profession in a spectacular manner:
"Fraternal Order of Police President Nelson Cuba said typical recruits train for at least six months and the sheriff's offices spends a minimum of $50,000-$60,000 per person to train the recruits.
Cuba said he has not been privy to the information surrounding the investigation, but he said the Fraternal Order of Police would be heavily involved in helping the recruits if what he has heard turns out to be true."
Mr. Cuba admits that he doesn't even know what the recruits did, save for some scuttlebutt, but he's nonetheless prepared to go to the mat for them no matter what they did. There's that annoyingly institutionalized "blue wall of silence" popping up once again.
Oh, and Mr. Cuba? $50,000 per officer times six being flushed down the drain is admittedly an expensive pill to swallow for now, but that number pales in comparison to the multi-million dollar judgments a bad cop's actions can cost a city, and is really insignificant when weighed against a department's reputation for employing good, honest, service-oriented officers, which is priceless.
It's a real shame that we have to explain that to you, sir.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Sorry, not interested in helping
ABC News has a piece on their website that seems to be all about generating some sympathy for an 11-year-old Polish girl named Ewelina Bledniak, whom the story reports the U.S. government is "heartlessly" going to rip away from her parents and ship back to her home country, ostensibly due to an immigration lawyer's screwup back in 2001.
Reading further into the story, though, one discovers some interesting facts that make this tale a tad less tear-worthy.
You see, little Ewelina's father, a permanent resident since 1992 and a citizen since 2006, brought his wife and daughter into the country illegally in 2000, using Mexico as a conduit. The pair applied for legal status once they were here, but apparently only the mother's was approved, a circumstance the family claims was due to an error by their previous immigration attorney. Once the father applied for citizenship a few years ago, a background check triggered by that process eventually turned up the fact that Ewelina was still here illegally. Since the period for applying for legal status for Ewelina had passed, an immigration judge apparently has no other option but to order the girl sent back to Poland.
Of course, her parents are free to accompany her back to Poland, but it seems they like the good life here a little bit more than they like their daughter. Ewelina's mom, Agnus, selfishly doesn't want to go back because it might (horrors!) jeopardize her own citzenship track:
"Bledniak is worried that her own legal status, won three years ago, would delay her quest for U.S. citizenship"
God forbid that her precious daughter get in the way of that goal.
Dear ol' dad Hubert is also declining to go back with his kid, citing his tile business.
(We're astounded, by the way, that the act of smuggling two people into the country illegally doesn't seem to knock a person's citizenship application off kilter in the least. Why isn't this kind of lawbreaking an instant disqualification factor?)
There's some parents of the year, eh? They are completely responsible for their minor child's awful legal predicament, yet are unwilling to sacrifice their own cushy lifestyle in order to do the right thing and return to Poland with their daughter to await the proper paperwork, which the story estimates could take up to a year to process.
Forget the stupid lawyer argument; the family was already here illegally when the attorney was retained, and whether they did their job properly or not doesn't change that fact. There are plenty of avenues to pursue sanctions against their legal representative if they were indeed lazy or negligent.
(By the way, what possible basis did the family have for applying for any kind of "oh, we're already here, so sorry" relief, anyway? Poland is a very fine country with a stable government and has absolutely no track record of terrible human rights abuses or any other kind of political or religious discrimination, factors that people can rightly claim asylum from when they arrive here from truly rotten and oppressive countries.)
The probable outcome seems to be that Ewelina will have to stay in Poland with her grandmother for up to a year while the legal stuff is ironed out.
Forgive us for not rushing out to contact our Congressman over this.
Reading further into the story, though, one discovers some interesting facts that make this tale a tad less tear-worthy.
You see, little Ewelina's father, a permanent resident since 1992 and a citizen since 2006, brought his wife and daughter into the country illegally in 2000, using Mexico as a conduit. The pair applied for legal status once they were here, but apparently only the mother's was approved, a circumstance the family claims was due to an error by their previous immigration attorney. Once the father applied for citizenship a few years ago, a background check triggered by that process eventually turned up the fact that Ewelina was still here illegally. Since the period for applying for legal status for Ewelina had passed, an immigration judge apparently has no other option but to order the girl sent back to Poland.
Of course, her parents are free to accompany her back to Poland, but it seems they like the good life here a little bit more than they like their daughter. Ewelina's mom, Agnus, selfishly doesn't want to go back because it might (horrors!) jeopardize her own citzenship track:
"Bledniak is worried that her own legal status, won three years ago, would delay her quest for U.S. citizenship"
God forbid that her precious daughter get in the way of that goal.
Dear ol' dad Hubert is also declining to go back with his kid, citing his tile business.
(We're astounded, by the way, that the act of smuggling two people into the country illegally doesn't seem to knock a person's citizenship application off kilter in the least. Why isn't this kind of lawbreaking an instant disqualification factor?)
There's some parents of the year, eh? They are completely responsible for their minor child's awful legal predicament, yet are unwilling to sacrifice their own cushy lifestyle in order to do the right thing and return to Poland with their daughter to await the proper paperwork, which the story estimates could take up to a year to process.
Forget the stupid lawyer argument; the family was already here illegally when the attorney was retained, and whether they did their job properly or not doesn't change that fact. There are plenty of avenues to pursue sanctions against their legal representative if they were indeed lazy or negligent.
(By the way, what possible basis did the family have for applying for any kind of "oh, we're already here, so sorry" relief, anyway? Poland is a very fine country with a stable government and has absolutely no track record of terrible human rights abuses or any other kind of political or religious discrimination, factors that people can rightly claim asylum from when they arrive here from truly rotten and oppressive countries.)
The probable outcome seems to be that Ewelina will have to stay in Poland with her grandmother for up to a year while the legal stuff is ironed out.
Forgive us for not rushing out to contact our Congressman over this.
A dark day for freedom and fairness
The Supreme Court has stunningly decreed, despite hundreds of years of precedent in the field of contract law and directly contrary to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, which specifically prohibits "Law[s] impairing the Obligation of Contracts", that the secured interests of a group of investors (retired Indiana teachers and police officers, in this case) in a company (Chrysler) can be unilaterally thrown overboard in favor of a group of unsecured parties (the UAW, among others) at the stroke of a pen, simply because the Messiah deems it politically and economically expedient.
As a matter of fact, Obama's Solicitor General actually filed papers in front of the Court yestersday arguing that those Indiana retirees actually lacked the legal standing to even file suit to oppose such a radical and unprecedented robbery of their money.
We are seriously considering moving our investments to hard commodities in order to protect ourselves from this sort of truly frightening financial robbery. What's the point of buying stock in or lending assets to a corporation, only to have one's hard-earned assets ripped away and given to someone else at a moment's notice?
As a matter of fact, Obama's Solicitor General actually filed papers in front of the Court yestersday arguing that those Indiana retirees actually lacked the legal standing to even file suit to oppose such a radical and unprecedented robbery of their money.
We are seriously considering moving our investments to hard commodities in order to protect ourselves from this sort of truly frightening financial robbery. What's the point of buying stock in or lending assets to a corporation, only to have one's hard-earned assets ripped away and given to someone else at a moment's notice?
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Way to have your employees' back, Al
Al Gore as well as Current TV, his "new media" outfit, have not bothered to comment publicly on the fact that two of their reporters have been convicted and given 12-year sentences for illegal entry into North Korea, nor has the plight of the two women been given a second of coverage on that supposed "news" channel, which has also censored reader comments on their official website and even gone so far as to post guards to keep other news outlets from trying to get more information, according to Arthur Bruzzone of the SF Politics Examiner.
Interestingly, some online commenters to Bruzzone's article point out that the cameraman accompanying the two women at the time of their arrest eluded capture by the North Korean border guards and has been back in the U.S. for some months. Why hasn't Current TV interviewed him publicly in an attempt to get an accurate first-hand account supporting their innocence, and possibly generate more sympathetic coverage for the jailed reporters, if indeed they were in Chinese territory when they were nabbed? Any other major media outlet would take that course of action if it were one of their newspeople behind bars, that's for sure.
Unless the trio were in fact in North Korea, in which case the women are truly screwed, as that country, despite being a dysfunctional shell of a nation run by a madman, is still a sovereign nation with the right to control its borders.
We're not seeing an easy solution to this incident, which is truly unfortunate for Ling and Lee, but the obvious non-coverage by their employer does serve to starkly illustrate the type of selective control of legitimate news stories that Gore and his ilk still in government would prefer the rest of the major liberal media to emulate, if they could only convince them to do so.
UPDATE: We just went to Current's website and did a search for "North Korea". Not one result about their own journalists came up, which only serves to buttress Bruzzone's assertion that they are indeed suppressing legitimate news coverage and commentary over there.
Oh, and for those that argue that Current self-censored at the urging of the State Department in the hopes of reaching a quiet resolution: That tactic, if it was indeed used, didn't seem to help very much, now did it?
Interestingly, some online commenters to Bruzzone's article point out that the cameraman accompanying the two women at the time of their arrest eluded capture by the North Korean border guards and has been back in the U.S. for some months. Why hasn't Current TV interviewed him publicly in an attempt to get an accurate first-hand account supporting their innocence, and possibly generate more sympathetic coverage for the jailed reporters, if indeed they were in Chinese territory when they were nabbed? Any other major media outlet would take that course of action if it were one of their newspeople behind bars, that's for sure.
Unless the trio were in fact in North Korea, in which case the women are truly screwed, as that country, despite being a dysfunctional shell of a nation run by a madman, is still a sovereign nation with the right to control its borders.
We're not seeing an easy solution to this incident, which is truly unfortunate for Ling and Lee, but the obvious non-coverage by their employer does serve to starkly illustrate the type of selective control of legitimate news stories that Gore and his ilk still in government would prefer the rest of the major liberal media to emulate, if they could only convince them to do so.
UPDATE: We just went to Current's website and did a search for "North Korea". Not one result about their own journalists came up, which only serves to buttress Bruzzone's assertion that they are indeed suppressing legitimate news coverage and commentary over there.
Oh, and for those that argue that Current self-censored at the urging of the State Department in the hopes of reaching a quiet resolution: That tactic, if it was indeed used, didn't seem to help very much, now did it?
A scene from a nightmare
Some of Zimbabwe Dictator for Life President Robert Mugabe's new shock troops police recruits undergoing "training" at a compound in the city of Harare:
Yes, the recruits are the ones in blue being beaten.
According to the person who posted the video, the word "wuraya" being yelled by the professional-minded instructors translates to "kill him".
We're sure the residents over there just can't wait for this latest group to be turned loose on them.
The liberal anti-gun readers who occasionally drop by here will be ecstatic to find that Zimbabwe has successfully implemented a strict gun control program that has resulted in the confiscation of all privately owned firearms there. This has ensured, of course, that brutal thugs like these recruits (once they complete their "training", of course) will be able to continue their boss's reign of terror on that country's peasants, stealing food and killing innocent people at will without any fear of resistance or reprisal from the local population, as they have been robbed of all means of fighting back.
The situation there is so bad that it completely changed a Canadian writer named Joe Katzman's stance on gun control awhile back:
"This week, I took the last step. You can thank Robert Mugabe, too, because it was his campaign to starve his political/tribal opponents and Pol-Pot style "ruralization" effort (200,000 left homeless recently in a population of 12.6 million) that finally convinced me. Here's the crux, the argument before which all other arguments pale into insignificance:
The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or sport shooting, despite what such blatant liars as the current Messiah and his minions will tell you in their half-hearted pledges to support it. It's about preventing horror stories such as the one currently taking place in Zimbabwe from ever happening in the United States.
Period.
Yes, the recruits are the ones in blue being beaten.
According to the person who posted the video, the word "wuraya" being yelled by the professional-minded instructors translates to "kill him".
We're sure the residents over there just can't wait for this latest group to be turned loose on them.
The liberal anti-gun readers who occasionally drop by here will be ecstatic to find that Zimbabwe has successfully implemented a strict gun control program that has resulted in the confiscation of all privately owned firearms there. This has ensured, of course, that brutal thugs like these recruits (once they complete their "training", of course) will be able to continue their boss's reign of terror on that country's peasants, stealing food and killing innocent people at will without any fear of resistance or reprisal from the local population, as they have been robbed of all means of fighting back.
The situation there is so bad that it completely changed a Canadian writer named Joe Katzman's stance on gun control awhile back:
"This week, I took the last step. You can thank Robert Mugabe, too, because it was his campaign to starve his political/tribal opponents and Pol-Pot style "ruralization" effort (200,000 left homeless recently in a population of 12.6 million) that finally convinced me. Here's the crux, the argument before which all other arguments pale into insignificance:
The Right to Bear Arms is the only reliable way to prevent genocide in the modern world.
And Zimbabwe is the poster child for that proposition.
...
The Right to Bear Arms. It's not just for Americans any more."The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or sport shooting, despite what such blatant liars as the current Messiah and his minions will tell you in their half-hearted pledges to support it. It's about preventing horror stories such as the one currently taking place in Zimbabwe from ever happening in the United States.
Period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
