Off to Europe for a well-deserved vacation. Blogging will be light to nonexistent due to spotty Internet access, as well as the high likelihood of having barrels of fun.
I may put up something if it's convenient, but no promises until Tuesday, August 4.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
We're behind the officer on this one
The police officer who arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. for disorderly conduct and who was called "stupid" by the Messiah for doing so, Sergeant James Crowley, happens to be the local police academy's expert on racial profiling "after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black".
Based on the coverage we've seen of the incident, it sure appears as if Gates completely overreacted to a perfectly reasonable request, and most likely genuinely earned his arrest for absolutely losing his cool that night. What's ironic is we'd bet that Mr. Gates would be first in line to sue the department had they not taken the possible burglary call seriously and declined to check it out, you know, "because Gates is black".
"Crowley, 42, has maintained he did nothing wrong and has refused to apologize, as Gates has demanded."
Good for him for sticking to his principles. In today's (thankfully) rapidly emerging post-racial society, reflexively crying race just because someone, even a highly educated someone, had a bad night and behaved like a complete jerk just isn't going to wash anymore.
Based on the coverage we've seen of the incident, it sure appears as if Gates completely overreacted to a perfectly reasonable request, and most likely genuinely earned his arrest for absolutely losing his cool that night. What's ironic is we'd bet that Mr. Gates would be first in line to sue the department had they not taken the possible burglary call seriously and declined to check it out, you know, "because Gates is black".
"Crowley, 42, has maintained he did nothing wrong and has refused to apologize, as Gates has demanded."
Good for him for sticking to his principles. In today's (thankfully) rapidly emerging post-racial society, reflexively crying race just because someone, even a highly educated someone, had a bad night and behaved like a complete jerk just isn't going to wash anymore.
Restrictions galore for thee, but not for me
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who hasn't yet come across an aspect of life that he didn't want to micromanage with government, last year signed into law one of the most restrictive anti-car-idling laws in the country.
Is he following the law himself? Of course not:
"The Associated Press has found his SUVs idling all over the city, from about 10 minutes to over an hour. In one week, the AP spotted the mayor's Chevrolet Suburbans idling for long periods at least eight times."
Suburbans, as in multiple running behemoths sitting around befouling the "pristine" city air with their noxious, children-killing exhaust while the good politician kisses babies and shakes hands. Anyone else caught doing so would get absolutely papered with tickets. His "Honor"? Here's the weak excuse they come up with:
"The mayor's SUVs are driven by his police detail and are classified as emergency vehicles"
That's not the point. We thought all idling by big, bad SUV's was horrific atmosphere-killing behavior, hence the draconian regulation. Bloomberg's shuttling around to different photo-ops around the city certainly doesn't seem to count as "emergencies", so why doesn't he have to comply with his own Nanny-state legal creation?
Is he following the law himself? Of course not:
"The Associated Press has found his SUVs idling all over the city, from about 10 minutes to over an hour. In one week, the AP spotted the mayor's Chevrolet Suburbans idling for long periods at least eight times."
Suburbans, as in multiple running behemoths sitting around befouling the "pristine" city air with their noxious, children-killing exhaust while the good politician kisses babies and shakes hands. Anyone else caught doing so would get absolutely papered with tickets. His "Honor"? Here's the weak excuse they come up with:
"The mayor's SUVs are driven by his police detail and are classified as emergency vehicles"
That's not the point. We thought all idling by big, bad SUV's was horrific atmosphere-killing behavior, hence the draconian regulation. Bloomberg's shuttling around to different photo-ops around the city certainly doesn't seem to count as "emergencies", so why doesn't he have to comply with his own Nanny-state legal creation?
This certainly looks disturbing, at least so far
Several Minnesota readers have emailed us because they are outraged about this incident, in which Le Sueur County Sheriff's Deputy Todd Waldron, in plainclothes and driving an unmarked Dodge Durango, shot and killed a Kasota man named Tyler Heilman in a confrontation after Waldron had followed Heilman and a friend in their vehicle for around 20 minutes because Heilman was allegedly driving erratically.
Waldron trailed the pair to an apartment complex parking lot and subsequently blocked their car in, after which a physical altercation is said to have occurred. Heilman was unarmed and wearing only a swimsuit at the time. His passenger, Kris Hoehn, steadfastly maintains that Waldron never identified himself as a police officer during the stop and that they had no idea that he was in fact a cop until a badge was exposed on Waldron's belt during the struggle, and another eyewitness confirms that Waldron gave no warning before discharging his firearm:
"Heilman then flipped Waldron to the ground and the two "wrestled," though no punches were thrown, Hoehn said. Heilman eventually pinned Waldron and only then saw the badge clipped to Waldron's belt. He then jumped off the deputy with his hands in the air, Hoehn said.
It certainly seems reasonable, at least to our layman's way of thinking, that standard department policy for any police force ought to dictate that should a plainclothes officer in an unmarked vehicle view a traffic violation, absent any immediately life-threatening circumstances they should first call for assistance from a marked unit complete with camera and unifomed officer with full force-escalation abilities before attempting to make the stop themselves. Waldron certainly had the time to do so as he was tailing Heilman all over the county.
That kind of prudent action would have safely solved this situation before it ended tragically, as we can easily see how Heilman and Hoehn, if their story is accurate, could reasonably believe that they were being followed in some sort of pending road-rage incident.
We will revisit this story once the the details are fully investigated, but based on the facts available so far we believe that the deadly force used by Deputy Waldron was completely unnecessary, could easily have been averted and should not be justified.
Waldron trailed the pair to an apartment complex parking lot and subsequently blocked their car in, after which a physical altercation is said to have occurred. Heilman was unarmed and wearing only a swimsuit at the time. His passenger, Kris Hoehn, steadfastly maintains that Waldron never identified himself as a police officer during the stop and that they had no idea that he was in fact a cop until a badge was exposed on Waldron's belt during the struggle, and another eyewitness confirms that Waldron gave no warning before discharging his firearm:
"Heilman then flipped Waldron to the ground and the two "wrestled," though no punches were thrown, Hoehn said. Heilman eventually pinned Waldron and only then saw the badge clipped to Waldron's belt. He then jumped off the deputy with his hands in the air, Hoehn said.
Waldron "sprang up and shot" without any warning, Hoehn said."
...
"Jolene Manderfield, who lives in the Valley View Apartments where Heilman was shot, supported Hoehn's account of the shooting occurring without any warning."
We believe that the resulting investigation needs to be finished before any definitive conclusions can be reached about this incident, but it looks pretty ugly, at least at this point.It certainly seems reasonable, at least to our layman's way of thinking, that standard department policy for any police force ought to dictate that should a plainclothes officer in an unmarked vehicle view a traffic violation, absent any immediately life-threatening circumstances they should first call for assistance from a marked unit complete with camera and unifomed officer with full force-escalation abilities before attempting to make the stop themselves. Waldron certainly had the time to do so as he was tailing Heilman all over the county.
That kind of prudent action would have safely solved this situation before it ended tragically, as we can easily see how Heilman and Hoehn, if their story is accurate, could reasonably believe that they were being followed in some sort of pending road-rage incident.
We will revisit this story once the the details are fully investigated, but based on the facts available so far we believe that the deadly force used by Deputy Waldron was completely unnecessary, could easily have been averted and should not be justified.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The same old tired story
The Arizona Republic has run yet another of its thinly-disguised opinion pieces human-interest "news" stories about illegal immigration; this time the overtly sympathy-seeking topic is the harsh plight of some unlawful migrants once they've been returned to their proper country, as if the current situation in the Mexican border town of Nogales is somehow our fault because the migrants didn't manage to successfully enter the United States or were caught and returned to Mexico once here.
It certainly isn't, of course.
In case any readers didn't get the none-too-subtle message that we're supposed to be doing something about the mess down there, which involves Mexican citizens in Mexico, here's the front-page photo that accompanied the piece:
(Nick Oza/The Arizona Republic)
We suspect a little "helpful" staging was done with that particular photo. Mr Oza will probably nevertheless be nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
Interestingly, the story (unwittingly, certainly) helps directly disprove the oft-repeated fallacy that the migrants "are only here temporarily to find work" by quoting outraged repatriated illegal immigrant Victoria Villagrana, who had been here for 21 years:
"'I am a stranger in my own land,' she says. 'I am so sad. When the bus came, it felt like I was leaving the country where I was born. I said, 'I don't want to go. This (United States) is my country.'"
Notice the irritating mindset of entitlement she exhibits, as if by simply residing in the U.S. for some years before being caught and deported she somehow rates special privileges, perks that are denied other immigrants because those chumps stupidly and naively did things the legal and correct way.
Sorry, Ms. Villagrana. You weren't in fact born here, no matter what it "feels" like to you, and Mexico is your lawful country of residence, not America.
Another returned illegal immigrant, in an admittedly tough scrape due to the choices that his parents made for him when he was 6, sure has a funny way of showing "respect" and "understanding" for our laws:
"[Fernando] Coria tried to re-enter the United States but got caught. He bears no resentment, only a resigned sadness. "I understand the law, and I respect it. But I have no choice," he says."
Then we submit you don't understand and respect the law, Mr. Coria, if you are continually trying to circumvent it.
We agree that Nogales, Mexico seems to be in an awful predicament these days. It is up to Mexico to find a way to resolve the problem, however. America is not at fault here just because we're finally beginning to defend our borders.
It certainly isn't, of course.
In case any readers didn't get the none-too-subtle message that we're supposed to be doing something about the mess down there, which involves Mexican citizens in Mexico, here's the front-page photo that accompanied the piece:
(Nick Oza/The Arizona Republic)We suspect a little "helpful" staging was done with that particular photo. Mr Oza will probably nevertheless be nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
Interestingly, the story (unwittingly, certainly) helps directly disprove the oft-repeated fallacy that the migrants "are only here temporarily to find work" by quoting outraged repatriated illegal immigrant Victoria Villagrana, who had been here for 21 years:
"'I am a stranger in my own land,' she says. 'I am so sad. When the bus came, it felt like I was leaving the country where I was born. I said, 'I don't want to go. This (United States) is my country.'"
Notice the irritating mindset of entitlement she exhibits, as if by simply residing in the U.S. for some years before being caught and deported she somehow rates special privileges, perks that are denied other immigrants because those chumps stupidly and naively did things the legal and correct way.
Sorry, Ms. Villagrana. You weren't in fact born here, no matter what it "feels" like to you, and Mexico is your lawful country of residence, not America.
Another returned illegal immigrant, in an admittedly tough scrape due to the choices that his parents made for him when he was 6, sure has a funny way of showing "respect" and "understanding" for our laws:
"[Fernando] Coria tried to re-enter the United States but got caught. He bears no resentment, only a resigned sadness. "I understand the law, and I respect it. But I have no choice," he says."
Then we submit you don't understand and respect the law, Mr. Coria, if you are continually trying to circumvent it.
We agree that Nogales, Mexico seems to be in an awful predicament these days. It is up to Mexico to find a way to resolve the problem, however. America is not at fault here just because we're finally beginning to defend our borders.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
... are Sheriff James Campbell and Inspector John Burke of the Albany County, New York Sheriff's Department, as well as eight narcotics "investigators" who were under the command of Burke, for inflicting the following horrific treatment on a man who was doing nothing more than riding a bus while carrying a backpack:
"A man who was forcibly sedated so his body could be searched for drugs that were never found will receive $125,000 under an out-of-court settlement reached recently with Albany County and Albany Medical Center Hospital."
This is unfortunately not some kind of sick joke, but something that actually happened to an innocent person in March 2006.
According to the article, this particular sheriff's office used to have a quaint little policy (since discontinued roughly eight years ago, when the practice was forbidden by a judge) of boarding buses arriving from New York City, flashing their badges, and then performing "stop-and-frisks" of anyone who visibly reacted to their self-important strutting around.
Having seemingly not learned their lesson at all from their previous judicial smackdown, the deputies in question stopped a man named Tunde Clement as he disembarked from a bus on March 13, 2006. Solely because Clement was wearing a backpack, the narcotics "detectives" somehow psychically determined that he was for sure some kind of drug mule.
The "investigators" then used that magical determination (and only that magical determination) as cause to run a warrant check on Clement, which indeed came up positive (for a failure to appear charge from a nearby locality, though, not a drug crime). The "genius" deputies then decided that they had all the proof they needed that Clement was in fact a drug runner, and took him first to jail, then to a nearby hospital, in order to retrieve the physical evidence they were sure he possessed, by any means they thought necessary.
The only minor flaw in their commendable master plan was - Clement didn't have any drugs on (or in) him:
"While Clement was under [forcible] sedation, a camera was inserted in his rectum, he was forced to vomit and his blood and urine were tested for drugs and alcohol. Scans of his digestive system were performed using X-ray machines"
All without a search warrant or any medical evidence whatsoever of "imminent danger", such as occurs when a person has a severe, life-threatening reaction to a bag of drugs rupturing while inside them. The sheep-like doctors present at the hospital basically did whatever the thug sheriffs told them to.
Having found bupkis in their illegal search of every nook and cranny of Mr. Clement, the deputies then kicked him loose, but not before giving him a citation for resisting arrest, a ticket which was obviously later dismissed by a judge.
To make matters even more surreal, the local hospital subsequently sent the poor fellow a bill for what was done to him:
"The following month Clement received a $6,792 bill from Albany Med for the procedures. Hospital records indicate the final diagnosis as 'hemorrhoids.'"
In our view, the only "hemorrhoids" present were the ones with badges who subjected Mr. Clement to this nightmare without one scintilla of probable cause that he was, in fact, in possession of narcotics.
We think that Mr. Clement should have imaginatively proposed forgoing any monetary settlement in favor of one small act of fairness - having the sheriff and his merry band of serial rights-violators undergo the same process that they inflicted on him.
Note to self - no more bus rides to Albany to tour whatever there is to see in that burg. It's just not worth the hassle.
"A man who was forcibly sedated so his body could be searched for drugs that were never found will receive $125,000 under an out-of-court settlement reached recently with Albany County and Albany Medical Center Hospital."
This is unfortunately not some kind of sick joke, but something that actually happened to an innocent person in March 2006.
According to the article, this particular sheriff's office used to have a quaint little policy (since discontinued roughly eight years ago, when the practice was forbidden by a judge) of boarding buses arriving from New York City, flashing their badges, and then performing "stop-and-frisks" of anyone who visibly reacted to their self-important strutting around.
Having seemingly not learned their lesson at all from their previous judicial smackdown, the deputies in question stopped a man named Tunde Clement as he disembarked from a bus on March 13, 2006. Solely because Clement was wearing a backpack, the narcotics "detectives" somehow psychically determined that he was for sure some kind of drug mule.
The "investigators" then used that magical determination (and only that magical determination) as cause to run a warrant check on Clement, which indeed came up positive (for a failure to appear charge from a nearby locality, though, not a drug crime). The "genius" deputies then decided that they had all the proof they needed that Clement was in fact a drug runner, and took him first to jail, then to a nearby hospital, in order to retrieve the physical evidence they were sure he possessed, by any means they thought necessary.
The only minor flaw in their commendable master plan was - Clement didn't have any drugs on (or in) him:
"While Clement was under [forcible] sedation, a camera was inserted in his rectum, he was forced to vomit and his blood and urine were tested for drugs and alcohol. Scans of his digestive system were performed using X-ray machines"
All without a search warrant or any medical evidence whatsoever of "imminent danger", such as occurs when a person has a severe, life-threatening reaction to a bag of drugs rupturing while inside them. The sheep-like doctors present at the hospital basically did whatever the thug sheriffs told them to.
Having found bupkis in their illegal search of every nook and cranny of Mr. Clement, the deputies then kicked him loose, but not before giving him a citation for resisting arrest, a ticket which was obviously later dismissed by a judge.
To make matters even more surreal, the local hospital subsequently sent the poor fellow a bill for what was done to him:
"The following month Clement received a $6,792 bill from Albany Med for the procedures. Hospital records indicate the final diagnosis as 'hemorrhoids.'"
In our view, the only "hemorrhoids" present were the ones with badges who subjected Mr. Clement to this nightmare without one scintilla of probable cause that he was, in fact, in possession of narcotics.
We think that Mr. Clement should have imaginatively proposed forgoing any monetary settlement in favor of one small act of fairness - having the sheriff and his merry band of serial rights-violators undergo the same process that they inflicted on him.
Note to self - no more bus rides to Albany to tour whatever there is to see in that burg. It's just not worth the hassle.
Officially "non-transparent", just as we thought
The top headline in today's Arizona Republic:
"President Obama's Transparency Faulted"
Special Investigator General Neil Barofsky, who is attempting to oversee the government's TARP program for crisis-stricken financial institutions only to be stonewalled at every turn by the Messiah's Treasury Department, has apparently had enough:
"Barofsky issued a stinging report Monday that complained of a lack of transparency in the Obama administration's management of the giant financial-services bailout program." (All emphases mine)
Mr. Barofsky isn't the only one who's been noticing a certain, shall we say, "opacity" lately on the part of the Messiah, in stark contrast to his fervent pledges of complete and utter clarity of governance on the part of himself and his administration at pretty much every speaking opportunity during the campaign:
"Increased transparency was a campaign pledge Obama made at every turn during the election campaign. As president, he said, he would invite television cameras into the negotiating sessions over health care"... "The discussions have not played out that way. Obama has met repeatedly in the White House with congressional leaders to discuss health-care strategy. No cameras, or reporters, have been allowed to cover the talks."
And more:
"Advocates for open government have been distressed by Obama's announcement in May that he would block release of photos showing U.S. troops mistreating prisoners in Iraq. They also criticized his efforts to conceal the names of visitors to the White House."
By the way, as long as we're checking up on President Obama's campaign promises, how's the Messiah's showy and proudly announced Day One executive order, the one that purported to "fix" what he repeatedly and loudly called one of the major mistakes of his predecessor by closing down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, coming along?
Er, the administration was kind of hoping that no one would get around to asking that question just yet:
"Senior administration officials said Monday that the report on detention will be delayed six months and the report on interrogation and transfer policy will be delayed two months."
That updated timeline would bring us to right around January 20, 2010, the firm date the "den of unspeakable torture" is supposed to be permanently boarded up on Obama's direct order.
So this report is to be completed moments before it's scheduled to be implemented, without any public review? That's apparently the case, but we are betting that at least some of those detainees aren't going anywhere, despite Obama's previous constant hammering on President Bush's "illegally" holding these unlawful battlefield combatants without giving them a trial:
"A final group will be held indefinitely without charge, subject to occasional judicial review, the administration has said."
Now hold on just one darn second - we thought that this was one of the major arguments passed down from the Messiah to us American simpletons as to why we were supposed to favor him in the voting booth last fall? Let's check the Google wayback machine for clarity:
"The president-elect has repeatedly said the legal framework at Gitmo has failed to successfully and swiftly prosecute terrorists," said one of the officials close to the transition, who was not authorized to speak publicly about private deliberations."
The latter, it seems, which doesn't seem so much like "change" to us.
UPDATE: A breaking example of President Obama's administration is shaping up to look strikingly similar to the one of former President Bush, as the Messiah is taking some heat (from Democrats, no less) for making "signing statements" that unconstitutionally assert his right to completely ignore the parts of laws that he doesn't care for, the exact same action that the Obama (correctly, in our opinion) harshly criticized President Bush for repeatedly doing while he was on the campaign trail, and something he repeatedly and solemnly vowed not to do himself:
"President Barack Obama has irked close allies in Congress by declaring he has the right to ignore legislation on constitutional grounds after having criticized George W. Bush for doing the same."
By way of comparison, here's Candidate Obama on the topic, as pulled out of the archives by Curt of Flopping Aces:
"We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress."
How quickly he forgets his lofty promises. But then again, he "taught the Constitution for ten years", so what do us peasants know compared to His All-Knowingness?
"Do as I say, not as I do" and "It's OK only if I say it is" seem to be quickly becoming the overriding themes of the Obama Presidency.
"President Obama's Transparency Faulted"
Special Investigator General Neil Barofsky, who is attempting to oversee the government's TARP program for crisis-stricken financial institutions only to be stonewalled at every turn by the Messiah's Treasury Department, has apparently had enough:
"Barofsky issued a stinging report Monday that complained of a lack of transparency in the Obama administration's management of the giant financial-services bailout program." (All emphases mine)
Mr. Barofsky isn't the only one who's been noticing a certain, shall we say, "opacity" lately on the part of the Messiah, in stark contrast to his fervent pledges of complete and utter clarity of governance on the part of himself and his administration at pretty much every speaking opportunity during the campaign:
"Increased transparency was a campaign pledge Obama made at every turn during the election campaign. As president, he said, he would invite television cameras into the negotiating sessions over health care"... "The discussions have not played out that way. Obama has met repeatedly in the White House with congressional leaders to discuss health-care strategy. No cameras, or reporters, have been allowed to cover the talks."
And more:
"Advocates for open government have been distressed by Obama's announcement in May that he would block release of photos showing U.S. troops mistreating prisoners in Iraq. They also criticized his efforts to conceal the names of visitors to the White House."
By the way, as long as we're checking up on President Obama's campaign promises, how's the Messiah's showy and proudly announced Day One executive order, the one that purported to "fix" what he repeatedly and loudly called one of the major mistakes of his predecessor by closing down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, coming along?
Er, the administration was kind of hoping that no one would get around to asking that question just yet:
"Senior administration officials said Monday that the report on detention will be delayed six months and the report on interrogation and transfer policy will be delayed two months."
That updated timeline would bring us to right around January 20, 2010, the firm date the "den of unspeakable torture" is supposed to be permanently boarded up on Obama's direct order.
So this report is to be completed moments before it's scheduled to be implemented, without any public review? That's apparently the case, but we are betting that at least some of those detainees aren't going anywhere, despite Obama's previous constant hammering on President Bush's "illegally" holding these unlawful battlefield combatants without giving them a trial:
"A final group will be held indefinitely without charge, subject to occasional judicial review, the administration has said."
Now hold on just one darn second - we thought that this was one of the major arguments passed down from the Messiah to us American simpletons as to why we were supposed to favor him in the voting booth last fall? Let's check the Google wayback machine for clarity:
"The president-elect has repeatedly said the legal framework at Gitmo has failed to successfully and swiftly prosecute terrorists," said one of the officials close to the transition, who was not authorized to speak publicly about private deliberations."
Yep, we thought we'd seen something along those lines.
We fail to see one whit's worth of difference in Bush's previous policy holding people forever without charging them with a crime (which we had some significant problems with, by the way) and Obama's current (and presumably future) policy of holding people forever without charging them with a crime. Can anyone help enlighten us as to exactly what the difference between the two happens to be?
It appears that CBS News called it exactly right back on November 14, 2008:
"It's a clear sign that the new president intends to make good on one of his most emphatic campaign promises"... "The real question facing Obama: Will he change the rules under which captured terrorists are held, or just their address?"The latter, it seems, which doesn't seem so much like "change" to us.
UPDATE: A breaking example of President Obama's administration is shaping up to look strikingly similar to the one of former President Bush, as the Messiah is taking some heat (from Democrats, no less) for making "signing statements" that unconstitutionally assert his right to completely ignore the parts of laws that he doesn't care for, the exact same action that the Obama (correctly, in our opinion) harshly criticized President Bush for repeatedly doing while he was on the campaign trail, and something he repeatedly and solemnly vowed not to do himself:
"President Barack Obama has irked close allies in Congress by declaring he has the right to ignore legislation on constitutional grounds after having criticized George W. Bush for doing the same."
By way of comparison, here's Candidate Obama on the topic, as pulled out of the archives by Curt of Flopping Aces:
"We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress."
How quickly he forgets his lofty promises. But then again, he "taught the Constitution for ten years", so what do us peasants know compared to His All-Knowingness?
"Do as I say, not as I do" and "It's OK only if I say it is" seem to be quickly becoming the overriding themes of the Obama Presidency.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Why I carry a handgun for protection, Vol. 20
So that if I and my loved ones are being obviously targeted for a mugging or worse, just like a friend of ours (we'll call him Moby Clarke, as that's his username over at the Forum) thought was imminent the other day, I will have an effective means immediately at hand to defend myself and my family.
In this case, just the sight of a holstered pistol was apparently enough of a deterrent to stop some street thugs in their tracks and cause them to seriously rethink their nefarious plans.
Let's let Moby recount the story in his own words:
"I was carrying openly while out picking up posters from our garage sale. I parked on the corner of Lowery and Penn Aves N and got out with my 5 year old daughter. Approaching us on Lowery were 2, well, uh, potentially not well-intentioned individuals. They slowed down as they got to my car and kind of "hung out" for a moment, without letting their eyes leave us. I had them in view the entire time, while carrying on a pleasant conversation with my daughter. I am left handed, hence, my carry gun, the remarkably outstanding, accurate, and did I mention, large, P7, was not immediately visible to them. We were about 45 feet from them as we reached the corner. While my daughter grabbed the signs, I casually turned about 115 degrees. I paused, making sure they saw my gun, silhouetted nicely against a white shirt, and rested my hand, innocently enough, on the pistol as I continued to make small talk with my daughter.
Their demeanor changed dramatically and an animated conversation took place between them. One said, in not-quite-a-whisper-end-of-exchange-way, "Damn, that is a big gun, Nxxxxr! I'm out." As I led my daughter around a large column on the sidewalk to keep the distance manageable if things got hinky, they were on the move in their original direction. As they passed, we were now on the street side of my car, one remarked, "Evenin' officer" with eyes straight ahead. The other guy had his head bowed.
Now, I am not the brightest bulb in the drawer, but I have a small suspicion that my openly carried firearm may have refocused these particular gentlemen’s intentions. Thoughts?"
We certainly do have thoughts.
What a frightening incident to have happen to a person. Kudos to you, Moby, both for showing such good situational awareness (always highly recommended when open carrying) and for being so well-prepared to defend your daughter as well as yourself from what was almost certainly an aborted robbery attempt. We're glad everyone is currently safe, sound and unmolested. Would that still be the case had Moby been perceived as a softer target by these "gentlemen"?
Maybe, but we highly doubt it. Moby is a calm, reasonable individual, and if he reports that he was about to be assaulted, we tend to believe him.
This type of defensive gun usage, in which a firearm either worn openly or produced in response to a threat stops a crime from being committed, is estimated to happen roughly 2 million times a year, according to Professor John Lott of the University of Maryland, the go-to scholar for these types of studies.
Lott also reports that these sorts of non-violent crime-averting uses of a legally carried firearm almost never get reported to law enforcement and the media simply because the gun isn't fired and no one is injured or arrested, and thus aren't included with the number of times a legally owned and carried firearm is discharged in self-defense, seriously undercounting the actual number of times a firearm is successfully used to protect oneself against a threat.
This incident further convinces us that law-abiding citizens such as ourselves need to be just as prepared for trouble as Moby fortunately was last weekend, as one never knows when and where some unprovoked mayhem by some cold-blooded criminals may come our way.
In this case, just the sight of a holstered pistol was apparently enough of a deterrent to stop some street thugs in their tracks and cause them to seriously rethink their nefarious plans.
Let's let Moby recount the story in his own words:
"I was carrying openly while out picking up posters from our garage sale. I parked on the corner of Lowery and Penn Aves N and got out with my 5 year old daughter. Approaching us on Lowery were 2, well, uh, potentially not well-intentioned individuals. They slowed down as they got to my car and kind of "hung out" for a moment, without letting their eyes leave us. I had them in view the entire time, while carrying on a pleasant conversation with my daughter. I am left handed, hence, my carry gun, the remarkably outstanding, accurate, and did I mention, large, P7, was not immediately visible to them. We were about 45 feet from them as we reached the corner. While my daughter grabbed the signs, I casually turned about 115 degrees. I paused, making sure they saw my gun, silhouetted nicely against a white shirt, and rested my hand, innocently enough, on the pistol as I continued to make small talk with my daughter.
Their demeanor changed dramatically and an animated conversation took place between them. One said, in not-quite-a-whisper-end-of-exchange-way, "Damn, that is a big gun, Nxxxxr! I'm out." As I led my daughter around a large column on the sidewalk to keep the distance manageable if things got hinky, they were on the move in their original direction. As they passed, we were now on the street side of my car, one remarked, "Evenin' officer" with eyes straight ahead. The other guy had his head bowed.
Now, I am not the brightest bulb in the drawer, but I have a small suspicion that my openly carried firearm may have refocused these particular gentlemen’s intentions. Thoughts?"
We certainly do have thoughts.
What a frightening incident to have happen to a person. Kudos to you, Moby, both for showing such good situational awareness (always highly recommended when open carrying) and for being so well-prepared to defend your daughter as well as yourself from what was almost certainly an aborted robbery attempt. We're glad everyone is currently safe, sound and unmolested. Would that still be the case had Moby been perceived as a softer target by these "gentlemen"?
Maybe, but we highly doubt it. Moby is a calm, reasonable individual, and if he reports that he was about to be assaulted, we tend to believe him.
This type of defensive gun usage, in which a firearm either worn openly or produced in response to a threat stops a crime from being committed, is estimated to happen roughly 2 million times a year, according to Professor John Lott of the University of Maryland, the go-to scholar for these types of studies.
Lott also reports that these sorts of non-violent crime-averting uses of a legally carried firearm almost never get reported to law enforcement and the media simply because the gun isn't fired and no one is injured or arrested, and thus aren't included with the number of times a legally owned and carried firearm is discharged in self-defense, seriously undercounting the actual number of times a firearm is successfully used to protect oneself against a threat.
This incident further convinces us that law-abiding citizens such as ourselves need to be just as prepared for trouble as Moby fortunately was last weekend, as one never knows when and where some unprovoked mayhem by some cold-blooded criminals may come our way.
A "Recovery ham" update
The USDA offers up a lame explanation that basically boils down to "the Recovery.gov website sucks", and counters that what was actually purchased from Clougherty Packing was 760,000 pounds of ham in two-pound increments "at a cost of approximately $1.50 per pound." (Emphasis mine)
Fair enough.
However, as online colleague and all-around wag Scott Jordan notes, Food Lion is right this minute advertising Smithfield Shank Portion Smoked Ham (or, as Scott puts it, "the good stuff") for 79 cents a pound.
That's right, the USDA paid just about twice as much wholesale for basically the same item a local discount grocery store is offering at retail to anyone who walks in the door, no bulk purchase required.
That'll sure put an end to any questions about the Feds' management competence. (eyes roll)
The government was probably better off letting the original story stand unchallenged. That way, their "superior" commodity negotiating skills wouldn't have been exposed for everyone to see.
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Details of this story are breaking with lightning speed. Isn't the Internet great?
According to Tim Worstall of the San Francisco Examiner, Clougherty Packing is owned by Hormel. As in James Hormel, the prolific donor to Democratic causes and former Ambassador to Luxembourg under Bill Clinton.
There's no definitive quid pro quo as of yet, but it sure would be interesting to examine the other sealed bids for the contract to see if Clougherty was indeed the proper winner of the process.
Fair enough.
However, as online colleague and all-around wag Scott Jordan notes, Food Lion is right this minute advertising Smithfield Shank Portion Smoked Ham (or, as Scott puts it, "the good stuff") for 79 cents a pound.
That's right, the USDA paid just about twice as much wholesale for basically the same item a local discount grocery store is offering at retail to anyone who walks in the door, no bulk purchase required.
That'll sure put an end to any questions about the Feds' management competence. (eyes roll)
The government was probably better off letting the original story stand unchallenged. That way, their "superior" commodity negotiating skills wouldn't have been exposed for everyone to see.
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Details of this story are breaking with lightning speed. Isn't the Internet great?
According to Tim Worstall of the San Francisco Examiner, Clougherty Packing is owned by Hormel. As in James Hormel, the prolific donor to Democratic causes and former Ambassador to Luxembourg under Bill Clinton.
There's no definitive quid pro quo as of yet, but it sure would be interesting to examine the other sealed bids for the contract to see if Clougherty was indeed the proper winner of the process.
The socialized medicine bill just keeps getting better and better
(That title is sarcasm, in case it didn't come through clearly enough.)
"On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama."
Try not to keel over in shock.
Heller's amendment was perfectly reasonable, and wouldn't have cost the taxpayers a penny:
"The Heller amendment would have required that individuals applying for the public health care option would be subject to two systems used to verify immigration status already in use by the government: The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program." (Emphasis mine)
How does it feel to know that should this scheme actually come to pass, you are going to be funding the health care for people who are here illegally, and who will themselves be paying nothing into the program?
"On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama."
Try not to keel over in shock.
Heller's amendment was perfectly reasonable, and wouldn't have cost the taxpayers a penny:
"The Heller amendment would have required that individuals applying for the public health care option would be subject to two systems used to verify immigration status already in use by the government: The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program." (Emphasis mine)
How does it feel to know that should this scheme actually come to pass, you are going to be funding the health care for people who are here illegally, and who will themselves be paying nothing into the program?
Not only was he a lemon-sucking sourpuss, he was wrong to boot
Having no other serious crimes whatsoever to investigate and solve, an (Anyone? Yep, here we go again) unnamed Haverford Township, Pennsylvania police officer decided to come down with all of the power of his position on seven young neighborhood kids, tots who in his esteemed judgment were feloniously going around door-to-door selling lemonade.
The only problem was, not only was the cop an officious jerk to these children, he was incorrect as well:
"The responding officer - who was unavailable, whom [Deputy Chief John] Viola would not identify, and whose name and badge number were blacked out of the police report - invoked a township ordinance against vending without a permit. What the officer didn't realize, Viola said, is that the law doesn't apply to anyone younger than 16."
(You know, you're not really complying with either the letter or the spirit of a formal records request law when you go around blocking out all of the relevant information, Chief Viola.)
"'The police officer would have no way of knowing this on the street,' Viola said. 'He acts on information he has available.'"
How about maybe checking in with someone more senior before lowering the boom on a bunch of budding entrepreneurs, if one is unsure of how to proceed? What's that we're always being told by our betters? Oh yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Well, that would seem to hold true when it comes to enforcing the law as well as breaking it, no?
Fortunately for all involved parties, Sergeant Joe Hagan of the same force, whom we infer from the article is an experienced, professional and service-oriented officer who possesses the common sense that his coworkers are sadly lacking, has stepped in to smooth over the hurt feelings and restore normalcy to the neighborhood.
Special raspberries have to go toMr. George Wilson William Nickerson, the doofus crotchety neighbor who called the cops to complain in the first place. (Why wasn't Nickerson's name redacted from the report, Chief Viola? Oh, that's right, he doesn't work for you, so under the bus he goes. Tra-la-la.)
You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Nickerson. You realize, of course, that this means war - no more yummy Girl Scout cookies for you.
The only problem was, not only was the cop an officious jerk to these children, he was incorrect as well:
"The responding officer - who was unavailable, whom [Deputy Chief John] Viola would not identify, and whose name and badge number were blacked out of the police report - invoked a township ordinance against vending without a permit. What the officer didn't realize, Viola said, is that the law doesn't apply to anyone younger than 16."
(You know, you're not really complying with either the letter or the spirit of a formal records request law when you go around blocking out all of the relevant information, Chief Viola.)
"'The police officer would have no way of knowing this on the street,' Viola said. 'He acts on information he has available.'"
How about maybe checking in with someone more senior before lowering the boom on a bunch of budding entrepreneurs, if one is unsure of how to proceed? What's that we're always being told by our betters? Oh yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Well, that would seem to hold true when it comes to enforcing the law as well as breaking it, no?
Fortunately for all involved parties, Sergeant Joe Hagan of the same force, whom we infer from the article is an experienced, professional and service-oriented officer who possesses the common sense that his coworkers are sadly lacking, has stepped in to smooth over the hurt feelings and restore normalcy to the neighborhood.
Special raspberries have to go to
You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Nickerson. You realize, of course, that this means war - no more yummy Girl Scout cookies for you.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
That's one heck of a "stimulus" grant
Well, the so-called "stimulus" package is helping out at least one company, specifically Clougherty Packing LLC of 3049 E. Vernon Avenue in Los Angeles, California. Here's what your confiscated hard-earned tax dollars are being used to purchase, taken straight from recovery.gov, the website that tracks the spending that's supposed to be restoring our economy to sanity (click on the pic to enlarge):
That's right - our wise and wonderful government paid this firm over $500,000 a pound for a two-pound frozen sliced ham. Is it made from a gold-plated pig?
With responsible, carefully targeted "shovel-ready" spending such as this, our current economic woes will obviously soon be a thing of the past.
We just can't wait until the Feds begin rooting out the rampant waste, fraud and abuse in the health-care system!
That's right - our wise and wonderful government paid this firm over $500,000 a pound for a two-pound frozen sliced ham. Is it made from a gold-plated pig?
With responsible, carefully targeted "shovel-ready" spending such as this, our current economic woes will obviously soon be a thing of the past.
We just can't wait until the Feds begin rooting out the rampant waste, fraud and abuse in the health-care system!
The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week, International Edition...
... is the unnamed (As always tends to happen in these cases, it seems. Why are these thuggish martinets constantly given such courtesies by the media, in spite of the fact that those same "authorities" proudly affix their names to these supposedly "public" summonses?) Queensland, Australia police officer who gave a cab driver there a $100 ticket because the cabbie's socks weren't pulled up enough to satisfy the apparently rule-obsessed cop:
"The Courier-Mail yesterday obtained the ticket issued last month to taxi driver Kidd Moors in which the officer claimed the offence was: 'Failed to dress neatly'. He identified the evidence as 'WHT/runners, short running socks'."
(It's a crime for an Australian taxi driver to show a little ankle? The horrors! How do the cops even manage to figure out who's in compliance? Is there some sort of officially mandated checkpoint where such a sock inspection takes place?)
Why did this particular nit-picky ticket get issued? Just because the "authority" could, according to the cabbie, although part of the answer also appears to be revenue generation for the local government, based on some of the other asinine tickets they've been handing out lately Down Under:
"The driver advocate said a recent government blitz on Brisbane drivers resulted in cabbies copping $400 fines for not having a 2009 version of a street directory, or for allowing a car's window tinting to peel."
We're sure the peasants of that city will feel much safer going about their daily lives once they find out exactly how their scarce police resources are beingwasted utilized.
More to the point, why is there an officially imposed-and-enforced by police dress code for Queensland private cab companies in the first place?
"The Courier-Mail yesterday obtained the ticket issued last month to taxi driver Kidd Moors in which the officer claimed the offence was: 'Failed to dress neatly'. He identified the evidence as 'WHT/runners, short running socks'."
(It's a crime for an Australian taxi driver to show a little ankle? The horrors! How do the cops even manage to figure out who's in compliance? Is there some sort of officially mandated checkpoint where such a sock inspection takes place?)
Why did this particular nit-picky ticket get issued? Just because the "authority" could, according to the cabbie, although part of the answer also appears to be revenue generation for the local government, based on some of the other asinine tickets they've been handing out lately Down Under:
"The driver advocate said a recent government blitz on Brisbane drivers resulted in cabbies copping $400 fines for not having a 2009 version of a street directory, or for allowing a car's window tinting to peel."
We're sure the peasants of that city will feel much safer going about their daily lives once they find out exactly how their scarce police resources are being
More to the point, why is there an officially imposed-and-enforced by police dress code for Queensland private cab companies in the first place?
Here comes the inevitable health-care rationing in the "model plan" for the entire country
Commonwealth Care, the socialized medicine scheme in Massachusetts (and a program we noted the other day is being sued by hospitals in that state for its shameful lack of reimbursement for care for the poor) is dropping 30,000 legal immigrants from coverage because there just isn't enough money left in the kitty to cover the health care costs for everyone, despite the state's promises:
"Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed restoring $70 million to the program, which would partly restore the immigrants’ coverage. But legislative leaders have balked, saying vital programs for other groups would have to be cut as a result." (Emphasis mine)
And so the delicate shell game of rationing begins.
MataHarley of Flopping Aces astutely points out that this is the very group that would be affected most negatively by being cut from the program, and thus seemingly the poorest choice for the chopping block:
"And the legal immigrants cut? They have a double whammy because they do not qualify for other federal aid, including Medicaid."
No matter. They are the ones identified as superfluous by the all-powerful bureaucracy, so off the rolls they go, despite the fact that many of them have paid into the program since its inception three years ago.
Naturally, an easy and simple (at least to the commissars who run this debacle) solution to the problem rears its confiscatory head once again:
"What the state needs, said Philip W. Johnston, chairman of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation and a former state secretary of health and human services, is a dedicated revenue stream to protect its pioneering system from cyclical downturns in the economy.
This breathtakingly expensive and rapidly failing bureaucratic mess on a single-state level is the "elegant solution" that the Messiah, along with Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, is using as a model for the national health care plan they hope to burden the rest of of us with.
Does anyone still think it's an idea well worth burdening the rest of the country with?
"Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed restoring $70 million to the program, which would partly restore the immigrants’ coverage. But legislative leaders have balked, saying vital programs for other groups would have to be cut as a result." (Emphasis mine)
And so the delicate shell game of rationing begins.
MataHarley of Flopping Aces astutely points out that this is the very group that would be affected most negatively by being cut from the program, and thus seemingly the poorest choice for the chopping block:
"And the legal immigrants cut? They have a double whammy because they do not qualify for other federal aid, including Medicaid."
No matter. They are the ones identified as superfluous by the all-powerful bureaucracy, so off the rolls they go, despite the fact that many of them have paid into the program since its inception three years ago.
Naturally, an easy and simple (at least to the commissars who run this debacle) solution to the problem rears its confiscatory head once again:
"What the state needs, said Philip W. Johnston, chairman of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation and a former state secretary of health and human services, is a dedicated revenue stream to protect its pioneering system from cyclical downturns in the economy.
The revenue, Mr. Johnston said, should come from an income tax surcharge on the wealthiest, as House leaders in Washington have proposed for a federal health plan"
Umm, Mr. Johnston? In case you don't remember, there has already been a massive income tax surcharge imposed in Massachusetts, one that was specifically designed to ensure a "dedicated revenue stream" to pay for Commonwealth Care, to the tune of $912 a year in penalties for an individual who decline to purchase a state government health insurance plan, and let's not forget the separate $1 a pack increase in the state cigarette tax that was also implemented solely to help pay for the program. Apparently those aren't enough of an income redistribution for Mr. Johnston, and zealots of his ilk are hungrily desiring to reach even deeper into the pockets of the peasants.This breathtakingly expensive and rapidly failing bureaucratic mess on a single-state level is the "elegant solution" that the Messiah, along with Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, is using as a model for the national health care plan they hope to burden the rest of of us with.
Does anyone still think it's an idea well worth burdening the rest of the country with?
Friday, July 17, 2009
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead on socialized health care...
... no matter what the actual facts happen to be:
"Obama's call for additional steps to hold down costs came one day after the head of the [non-partisan] Congressional Budget Office told Congress the legislation taking shape so far would fail to accomplish that."
As talk radio host Roger Hedgecock put it this afternoon, why is it necessary to spend up to 1.5 trillon dollars of our hard-earned money in order to reach the goal of "containing costs"? That plan certainly doesn't sound like it will accomplish the task.
"Now is not the time to lose heart," [the Messiah] declared."
We agree with the President for once, as we can now actually see a glimmer of hope that this unconstitutional government takeover of health care may actually be stopped.
"Obama's call for additional steps to hold down costs came one day after the head of the [non-partisan] Congressional Budget Office told Congress the legislation taking shape so far would fail to accomplish that."
As talk radio host Roger Hedgecock put it this afternoon, why is it necessary to spend up to 1.5 trillon dollars of our hard-earned money in order to reach the goal of "containing costs"? That plan certainly doesn't sound like it will accomplish the task.
"Now is not the time to lose heart," [the Messiah] declared."
We agree with the President for once, as we can now actually see a glimmer of hope that this unconstitutional government takeover of health care may actually be stopped.
Happy Anniversary, Heller
One year after the Heller decision, the Washington Times notes that not a single legally acquired handgun has been used in a crime, was stolen, or has even been illegally discharged.
In fact, violent crime in the city has actually decreased, albeit by a negligible amount. Nevertheless, the legally owned firearms certainly didn't add to the crime rate, and their presence might just have given the town's criminal thugs a moment or two of pause before they committed their next home invasion robbery.
Once again, the hysterical predictions of "blood running in the streets" by anti-gun organizations such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center have all come to naught, just as they have in all of the states where peasants have been allowed to reclaim their rights of gun possession and public carry for self-defense.
Another factoid that ol' Sarah won't tell you - of the 40 states with "shall-issue" firearm carry permit policies, none have ever repealed them for any reason, which further demonstrates that responsible, law-abiding citizens aren't the problem when it comes to gun crimes in America - criminals (who don't abide by any laws whether firearm-related or not, by the way) are responsible for those particular statistics.
(h/t to Dave Hardy at Of Arms and the Law for calling our attention to the Times article)
In fact, violent crime in the city has actually decreased, albeit by a negligible amount. Nevertheless, the legally owned firearms certainly didn't add to the crime rate, and their presence might just have given the town's criminal thugs a moment or two of pause before they committed their next home invasion robbery.
Once again, the hysterical predictions of "blood running in the streets" by anti-gun organizations such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center have all come to naught, just as they have in all of the states where peasants have been allowed to reclaim their rights of gun possession and public carry for self-defense.
Another factoid that ol' Sarah won't tell you - of the 40 states with "shall-issue" firearm carry permit policies, none have ever repealed them for any reason, which further demonstrates that responsible, law-abiding citizens aren't the problem when it comes to gun crimes in America - criminals (who don't abide by any laws whether firearm-related or not, by the way) are responsible for those particular statistics.
(h/t to Dave Hardy at Of Arms and the Law for calling our attention to the Times article)
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Senator Boxer gets royally ripped
Watch as Mr. Alford rightly calls her out on her blatant attempt to insert racial politics into a discussion on the carbon emissions bill (and wonder as she declines to haughtily require that he address her as "Senator" rather than "ma'am", as she rudely demanded of a Pentagon general at a hearing a few weeks back).
It's well worth viewing the entire clip.
Ms. Boxer really is in contention for the dumbest person in Washington.
A Herculean task, but we're valiantly trying to get it done
We've begun the process of analyzing the enormous, 1,018 page (the House legislators probably won't read this one as well, just as they voted on the recent massive carbon emissions bill without so much as a cursory glance) socialized health care proposal that the Congressional Democrats vomited onto the table the other day. This will necessarily take quite some time, but a few quick impressions while we get started:
1. The proposed legislation waits all the way until page 16 to gradually outlaw private insurance over time by starving it of customers, as Investor's Business Daily found out when they began reading it. The smoking paragraph in the bill:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law."
Translation: Insurance companies will be prohibited from signing up any new customers should this bill become law. One will be limited to the private insurance program he or she is enrolled in at the time the legislation goes into effect, and they will not be able to change private carriers or buy a new policy from another company should they change jobs, decide to go into business for themselves or quit working. Big Nanny Government Insurance, being the only legal option left at that point, will be quite happy to sign them up, however.
How convenient.
We agree with IBD, which opines about this blatant strong-arming of private commerce:
"Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives."
2. The Democrats in Congress, along with the Messiah and his henchman Rahm Emanuel, seem to be quite comfortable with the idea of ramming this bill through without a single Republican vote, should that tactic become necessary:
"In entertaining the possibility of a party-line vote on health care, Emanuel cited “reconciliation,” a parliamentary procedure that a dominant party can use to prevent the other party from blocking legislation."
Bipartisanship? That's long gone. The Democrats now have the votes now to pass pretty much anything they wish, and they seem hell bent on doing exactly that.
The one advantage of such a scenario is that the Democrats would be completely responsible for the law and its eventual spectacular failure once the Ponzi scheme runs out of money. How do we know this? Just look at the next section.
3. The same exact program of government-sponsored health care in Massachusetts, only implemented in 2006, is already beginning to fall apart, as evidenced by a hospital just yesterday suing that state for failing to pay the health care costs for poor people as promised, causing the Boston Medical Center to lose 38 million dollars last year, with a projected loss of more than 100 million dollars next year:
"The central charge in the suit is that the state has siphoned money away from Boston Medical to help pay the considerable cost of insuring all but a small percentage of residents."
Naturally, it's all the hospital's fault, according to the incompetents who run the asylum known as Massachusetts state government :
"State officials have suggested that Boston Medical could reduce costs by operating more efficiently."
The stock answer for every problem that will crop up on a national level, you'll soon find out. That tactic works just dandy; until there's nothing left to cut, that is. That's when the rationing will begin, and the peasants will begin to find out just who among them is more "equal" than the others.
4. To gin up support for this monstrosity, the Messiah and his cohorts have taken to calling health care a "right". The only problem with such a label is that it's misapplied; true rights don't require other people to pay for them, as Billy Beck simply (and eloquently) notes:
"Get this straight: you have no right to anything that was produced by others and taken from them by force or its threat."
Yep. Rights such as free speech and assembly, self-defense, protection from unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination, as well as the freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all cost nothing to other people, and are simply priceless in any event. No one should ever have a claim to the products of others' sweat and toil simply because the moochers desire those items.
5. Please keep in mind the many examples we regularly provide here of the stark horrors of the liberal-idealized socialized medicine scheme in England, which is very similar to what's been proposed for America. We do this in order to inform everyone of the "quality" of care that the Messiah wishes to impose on the peasantry in this country.
Want a fresh story? Certainly. The Daily Mail reported only yesterday that:
"Thousands of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers face a lifetime of agony because they are not being treated quickly enough"
Instead of beginning treatment within three months of diagnosis, essential for establishing control of the disease in order to limit painful and permanent joint damage and halt the potentially fatal progression of the disorder to the heart and lungs, British subjects with RA are unfortunately finding out that:
"the average wait is nine months - and GPs are not trained well enough to know what help to offer." (Emphasis mine)
So people suffering from excruciating pain over there are being forced to wait three times as long as recommended, and the incompetent doctors don't know what they are doing when the patients' numbers do finally get called. That certainly sounds like an A-Number One health-care system to model ours after, doesn't it?
6. James Pethokoukis of Reuters lists 9 more reasons why this scheme to instantly nationalize one-sixth of our economy forever is a disaster waiting to happen, if anyone needs another viewpoint on the subject.
Much more later, once we have the time to really delve into the bowels of the proposal.
1. The proposed legislation waits all the way until page 16 to gradually outlaw private insurance over time by starving it of customers, as Investor's Business Daily found out when they began reading it. The smoking paragraph in the bill:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law."
Translation: Insurance companies will be prohibited from signing up any new customers should this bill become law. One will be limited to the private insurance program he or she is enrolled in at the time the legislation goes into effect, and they will not be able to change private carriers or buy a new policy from another company should they change jobs, decide to go into business for themselves or quit working. Big Nanny Government Insurance, being the only legal option left at that point, will be quite happy to sign them up, however.
How convenient.
We agree with IBD, which opines about this blatant strong-arming of private commerce:
"Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives."
2. The Democrats in Congress, along with the Messiah and his henchman Rahm Emanuel, seem to be quite comfortable with the idea of ramming this bill through without a single Republican vote, should that tactic become necessary:
"In entertaining the possibility of a party-line vote on health care, Emanuel cited “reconciliation,” a parliamentary procedure that a dominant party can use to prevent the other party from blocking legislation."
Bipartisanship? That's long gone. The Democrats now have the votes now to pass pretty much anything they wish, and they seem hell bent on doing exactly that.
The one advantage of such a scenario is that the Democrats would be completely responsible for the law and its eventual spectacular failure once the Ponzi scheme runs out of money. How do we know this? Just look at the next section.
3. The same exact program of government-sponsored health care in Massachusetts, only implemented in 2006, is already beginning to fall apart, as evidenced by a hospital just yesterday suing that state for failing to pay the health care costs for poor people as promised, causing the Boston Medical Center to lose 38 million dollars last year, with a projected loss of more than 100 million dollars next year:
"The central charge in the suit is that the state has siphoned money away from Boston Medical to help pay the considerable cost of insuring all but a small percentage of residents."
Naturally, it's all the hospital's fault, according to the incompetents who run the asylum known as Massachusetts state government :
"State officials have suggested that Boston Medical could reduce costs by operating more efficiently."
The stock answer for every problem that will crop up on a national level, you'll soon find out. That tactic works just dandy; until there's nothing left to cut, that is. That's when the rationing will begin, and the peasants will begin to find out just who among them is more "equal" than the others.
4. To gin up support for this monstrosity, the Messiah and his cohorts have taken to calling health care a "right". The only problem with such a label is that it's misapplied; true rights don't require other people to pay for them, as Billy Beck simply (and eloquently) notes:
"Get this straight: you have no right to anything that was produced by others and taken from them by force or its threat."
Yep. Rights such as free speech and assembly, self-defense, protection from unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination, as well as the freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all cost nothing to other people, and are simply priceless in any event. No one should ever have a claim to the products of others' sweat and toil simply because the moochers desire those items.
5. Please keep in mind the many examples we regularly provide here of the stark horrors of the liberal-idealized socialized medicine scheme in England, which is very similar to what's been proposed for America. We do this in order to inform everyone of the "quality" of care that the Messiah wishes to impose on the peasantry in this country.
Want a fresh story? Certainly. The Daily Mail reported only yesterday that:
"Thousands of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers face a lifetime of agony because they are not being treated quickly enough"
Instead of beginning treatment within three months of diagnosis, essential for establishing control of the disease in order to limit painful and permanent joint damage and halt the potentially fatal progression of the disorder to the heart and lungs, British subjects with RA are unfortunately finding out that:
"the average wait is nine months - and GPs are not trained well enough to know what help to offer." (Emphasis mine)
So people suffering from excruciating pain over there are being forced to wait three times as long as recommended, and the incompetent doctors don't know what they are doing when the patients' numbers do finally get called. That certainly sounds like an A-Number One health-care system to model ours after, doesn't it?
6. James Pethokoukis of Reuters lists 9 more reasons why this scheme to instantly nationalize one-sixth of our economy forever is a disaster waiting to happen, if anyone needs another viewpoint on the subject.
Much more later, once we have the time to really delve into the bowels of the proposal.
How the government wastes "wisely spends" your money
The Social Security Administration, one of the sad-sack government agencies that seems to forever find itself in dire financial straits, has just blown $700,000 of our hard-earned dollars, confiscated from us on pain of imprisonment, to treat 700 of their executives to a three-day retreat at the historic Biltmore Hotel here in Phoenix, a swanky place indeed.
It appears that the muckety-mucks at the SSA decided that this trip represented a good idea even though the government is in the middle of a dire financial crisis. Why not? It's not like it's their money.
The stated purpose of the gathering: To help these high-level employees learn how to cope with the stress that results from allegedly receiving death threats:
"'We received threats against our employees by people who are in the American public,' said SSA Regional Commissioner for San Francisco Peter Spencer in defense of the conference."
The 700 workers who were "seriously" threatened by the likes of retirees and the disabled were all top managers, and none were front-line employees? That sounds a little far-fetched, to say the least.
Wait until reports of this debacle get wide coverage. Is it possible the agency will now have to schedule a retreat for stress from death threats, prompted by news of this retreat for stress from death threats?
In other news, acceptable methods of "stress relief from death threats" now apparently include motivational dance lessons (whatever that happens to be. Sounds weird, and quite expensive.) from a troupe, the ability to bring one's relatives along on this expensive boondoggle and an evening trip to a local casino (where gambling, not motivational dancing, hopefully took place).
All levity aside, is this the type of "responsible" stewardship to which you would feel comfortable entrusting the health care of you and your loved ones, along with everyone else in the country (whether they wish to participate or not), to the tune of one-sixth of the U.S. economy?
It appears that the muckety-mucks at the SSA decided that this trip represented a good idea even though the government is in the middle of a dire financial crisis. Why not? It's not like it's their money.
The stated purpose of the gathering: To help these high-level employees learn how to cope with the stress that results from allegedly receiving death threats:
"'We received threats against our employees by people who are in the American public,' said SSA Regional Commissioner for San Francisco Peter Spencer in defense of the conference."
The 700 workers who were "seriously" threatened by the likes of retirees and the disabled were all top managers, and none were front-line employees? That sounds a little far-fetched, to say the least.
Wait until reports of this debacle get wide coverage. Is it possible the agency will now have to schedule a retreat for stress from death threats, prompted by news of this retreat for stress from death threats?
In other news, acceptable methods of "stress relief from death threats" now apparently include motivational dance lessons (whatever that happens to be. Sounds weird, and quite expensive.) from a troupe, the ability to bring one's relatives along on this expensive boondoggle and an evening trip to a local casino (where gambling, not motivational dancing, hopefully took place).
All levity aside, is this the type of "responsible" stewardship to which you would feel comfortable entrusting the health care of you and your loved ones, along with everyone else in the country (whether they wish to participate or not), to the tune of one-sixth of the U.S. economy?
A snapshot of life
July 15, 2009
Scottsdale, Arizona
8:47 p.m.
We found a little present in our backyard this evening:
She appears to be 4 to 5 weeks of age, and purrs like a maniac.
Scottsdale, Arizona
8:47 p.m.
We found a little present in our backyard this evening:
She appears to be 4 to 5 weeks of age, and purrs like a maniac.
Off topic but interesting, at least to me
Looking for a present for the sniper who has everything? Well, how about a tactical cup holder for that prize firearm?
(Wired)
(Wired)
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Pulling a fast one
Via Net Right Nation, we learn that Senator Harry Reid is using some sneaky tactics to force a vote on the proposed "hate crimes" bill, since it doesn't seem to have a chance of passing on its own in the light of day.
This execrable legislation would pretty much make it a Federal offense (complete with tacking on extra penalties) to commit a crime against any person who isn't a white heterosexual male, effectively and completely nullifying the concept of equal treatment for all citizens under the law:
Here is the urgent note I just received from Lanier Swann, the special assistant to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
Friends,
Moments ago Majority Leader Reid filed a hate crimes amendment to the DOD Authorization Bill. He then filled the tree, which means no amendments can be offered to his amendment, and filed cloture on the amendment.
Thanks,
Lanier
In other words, Reid -- under the thumb of Obama and Holder -- is attaching the bill to an unrelated defense bill, in order to force senators to vote for it if they want to protect our troops. He is allowing no amendments. And he is calling for cloture to rush the bill through before any debate can take place.
Here's a clear example of just how unfairly this execrable legislation would be applied:
This execrable legislation would pretty much make it a Federal offense (complete with tacking on extra penalties) to commit a crime against any person who isn't a white heterosexual male, effectively and completely nullifying the concept of equal treatment for all citizens under the law:
Here is the urgent note I just received from Lanier Swann, the special assistant to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
Friends,
Moments ago Majority Leader Reid filed a hate crimes amendment to the DOD Authorization Bill. He then filled the tree, which means no amendments can be offered to his amendment, and filed cloture on the amendment.
Thanks,
Lanier
In other words, Reid -- under the thumb of Obama and Holder -- is attaching the bill to an unrelated defense bill, in order to force senators to vote for it if they want to protect our troops. He is allowing no amendments. And he is calling for cloture to rush the bill through before any debate can take place.
Here's a clear example of just how unfairly this execrable legislation would be applied:
"Later in the same hearing, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) -- apparently trying to give Holder an opportunity to at least ameliorate his stated intention to override the 14th Amendment’s “Equal Protection” provision – asked the AG if the recent murder of Army recruiter Pvt. William Long by a radical Muslim constituted a “hate crime.” Nope, proclaimed Holder; Mr. Long was the wrong color. Here’s the actual quote:
“What we are looking for here in terms of expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis. See, groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are. I don’t know if we have the same historical record to say members of our military have been targeted in the same way that people who are African American …”"
This law would create two classes of Americans, at least for criminal justice purposes, and would further wedge open the very racial divide that it purports to close.
We're contacting our Senators immediately, and hope that everyone else does the same.
The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week...
... is the unnamed Dallas police officer who assisted the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in raiding the second gay bar in that metro area this month.
Unnamed, of course, because the good law-enforcement professional felt it necessary to don a black ninja mask during the roust in order to conceal his identity:
The reason given for the clandestine "high risk" operation on the Eagle bar in the first place?
"A guard at the Eagle says TABC officials were questioning whether the address on the liquor license was changed after the club reopened just yards from its previous location." (Emphasis mine)
That sure sounds like an minor administrative point to us. Why was it necessary to investigate it with black-clad thugs in the middle of the night instead of calling the bar's management and clearing up the point during the day, if this wasn't a blatant harassment attempt?
A DPD spokesman admits that it was probably one of their officers who was apparently so proud of his actions that he felt it necessary to cower behind his security blanket:
"[The spokesman] concurred it could have been one of their officers who do at time wear masks to conceal their identities, but they do not have the authority to shut down a bar."
Because checking the address on a liquor license is apparently comparable to busting a meth lab run by violent felons.
Those types of masks should only be specifically permitted during the service of truly high-risk search warrants, and not for garden-variety investigations such as this one apparently was, as the peasants certainly have a right to know which public "servants" are giving them such a hard time while they're attempting to enjoy a night out.
At least no one was injured this time, unlike what happened at a Fort Worth club three weeks ago, in which one man was reportedly hospitalized for a brain bleed from being assaulted by officers while numerous other people were arrested for public intoxication.
At a bar.
No reason has yet been given by the "authorities" for the Fort Worth raid. Perhaps they didn't have the requisite number of urinal cakes in the bathroom.
Unnamed, of course, because the good law-enforcement professional felt it necessary to don a black ninja mask during the roust in order to conceal his identity:
The reason given for the clandestine "high risk" operation on the Eagle bar in the first place?
"A guard at the Eagle says TABC officials were questioning whether the address on the liquor license was changed after the club reopened just yards from its previous location." (Emphasis mine)
That sure sounds like an minor administrative point to us. Why was it necessary to investigate it with black-clad thugs in the middle of the night instead of calling the bar's management and clearing up the point during the day, if this wasn't a blatant harassment attempt?
A DPD spokesman admits that it was probably one of their officers who was apparently so proud of his actions that he felt it necessary to cower behind his security blanket:
"[The spokesman] concurred it could have been one of their officers who do at time wear masks to conceal their identities, but they do not have the authority to shut down a bar."
Because checking the address on a liquor license is apparently comparable to busting a meth lab run by violent felons.
Those types of masks should only be specifically permitted during the service of truly high-risk search warrants, and not for garden-variety investigations such as this one apparently was, as the peasants certainly have a right to know which public "servants" are giving them such a hard time while they're attempting to enjoy a night out.
At least no one was injured this time, unlike what happened at a Fort Worth club three weeks ago, in which one man was reportedly hospitalized for a brain bleed from being assaulted by officers while numerous other people were arrested for public intoxication.
At a bar.
No reason has yet been given by the "authorities" for the Fort Worth raid. Perhaps they didn't have the requisite number of urinal cakes in the bathroom.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Thank you, Governor Brewer
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed into law the gun-rights bills that we previously noted had been approved by the state Legislature:
"Brewer signed into law a proposal that will allow the state's 125,000 carriers of concealed-weapons permits to bring their firearms into bars and restaurants. The measure allows bar owners to remain gun-free by posting signs prohibiting weapons. Permit-holders would be prohibited from drinking in a bar while carrying their firearms...
Brewer's approval of a second proposal will prohibit property and business owners from banning guns from parking areas, so long as the weapons are kept locked in privately owned vehicles...
Lastly, Brewer OK'd a proposal that allows any individual who feels threatened to indicate that they're carrying a weapon without violating intimidation statutes. The law only applies for instances of self-defense."
The new laws go into effect on September 30.
On behalf of all the freedom-loving people in Arizona, Governor, thank you very much. We won't soon forget your actions in support of us.
"Brewer signed into law a proposal that will allow the state's 125,000 carriers of concealed-weapons permits to bring their firearms into bars and restaurants. The measure allows bar owners to remain gun-free by posting signs prohibiting weapons. Permit-holders would be prohibited from drinking in a bar while carrying their firearms...
Brewer's approval of a second proposal will prohibit property and business owners from banning guns from parking areas, so long as the weapons are kept locked in privately owned vehicles...
Lastly, Brewer OK'd a proposal that allows any individual who feels threatened to indicate that they're carrying a weapon without violating intimidation statutes. The law only applies for instances of self-defense."
The new laws go into effect on September 30.
On behalf of all the freedom-loving people in Arizona, Governor, thank you very much. We won't soon forget your actions in support of us.
Why he's labeled as such around here
We have taken some criticism in the past day or so for referring to President Obama as "the Messiah", typified by this comment:
"I am getting tired (exhausted, in fact) by all of the twits calling the President "Messiah". He never called himself that, and none of his supporters did either."
We respectfully beg to disagree. There's a list right here that details just some of the many times he's been compared to a god by people. There's lots more examples over here .
Need more? Here's video ol' Louis Farrakhan (whom we submit certainly counts as a supporter of Obama) specifically calling him a messiah:
Or how about artist Michael D'Antuono's painting, done to commemorate Obama's first 100 days in office?
You get the idea.
We can provide many other examples that further illustrate the godlike treatment Obama has received (the swooning and fainting at his campaign rallies, the Rolling Stone and Time magazine cover photos that seem to depict him surrounded by a halo, his enjoyment of a lack of any serious pre-election investigation into his secretive academic career and shady political associations, something given to no other Presidential candidate in history, among many others), but here's something from just the other day that will suffice to show how much people are still in the tank for him:
Notice how "news" anchor Mr. Lemon visibly starts and gets a sour look on his face when his worshipful bubble is burst by being informed that the friendly welcome Obama received on his Africa trip is merely typical of how other Western leaders have been treated, and how quickly the Lemon appears to want to end the interview once it becomes clear that the professional correspondent isn't going to reply to his blatantly leading question by gushing all over the screen about his hero.
So yes, in response to this onslaught, the moniker will stay. We hope you understand and will stay as well.
"I am getting tired (exhausted, in fact) by all of the twits calling the President "Messiah". He never called himself that, and none of his supporters did either."
We respectfully beg to disagree. There's a list right here that details just some of the many times he's been compared to a god by people. There's lots more examples over here .
Need more? Here's video ol' Louis Farrakhan (whom we submit certainly counts as a supporter of Obama) specifically calling him a messiah:
Or how about artist Michael D'Antuono's painting, done to commemorate Obama's first 100 days in office?
You get the idea.
We can provide many other examples that further illustrate the godlike treatment Obama has received (the swooning and fainting at his campaign rallies, the Rolling Stone and Time magazine cover photos that seem to depict him surrounded by a halo, his enjoyment of a lack of any serious pre-election investigation into his secretive academic career and shady political associations, something given to no other Presidential candidate in history, among many others), but here's something from just the other day that will suffice to show how much people are still in the tank for him:
Notice how "news" anchor Mr. Lemon visibly starts and gets a sour look on his face when his worshipful bubble is burst by being informed that the friendly welcome Obama received on his Africa trip is merely typical of how other Western leaders have been treated, and how quickly the Lemon appears to want to end the interview once it becomes clear that the professional correspondent isn't going to reply to his blatantly leading question by gushing all over the screen about his hero.
So yes, in response to this onslaught, the moniker will stay. We hope you understand and will stay as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
