Two police officers in Martinsville, Indiana have been placed on administrative leave after they were accused of assaulting and then TASERing a badly-behaving 10-year-old boy at a local daycare center.
"The release said that the officers, trying to prevent the child from hurting other children, staff members and himself, slapped the boy and then used a Taser to subdue him."
"We had to hurt the child to stop him from hurting himself". What doublespeak lunacy.
It's a sad day when two adults who are professionally trained in subduing large criminal suspects can't manage to restrain a small child without resorting to (and misusing) their favorite compliance tool.
Unless, of course, they never even bothered to try, and merely lit the poor kid up right out of the gate.
The results of this internal investigation should be quite illuminating.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Breathtaking stupidity
Admiral Willard deserves the highest praise for managing to keep a straight face during this farce of a hearing. We would have fallen out of our chairs with convulsive laughter at that complete idiot's worries about capsizing an island with too many people.
And yes, Representative Johnson was one of the freedom-sapping individuals who saw fit to impose President Obama's health care Ponzi scheme on the peasants.
(Ace link)
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Funny, sad and true, all at the same time
"Most of these people [in the Administration] have never had a real job in their lives. They don't understand a thing about business, and that includes the President," says a senior lobbyist for one of the companies that announced the charge [to compensate for the inevitable rise in health care costs]. "My CEO sat with the President over lunch with two other CEOs, and each of them tried to explain to the President what this [health care] bill would do to our companies and the economy in general. First the President didn't understand what they were talking about. Then he basically told my boss he was lying. Frankly my boss was embarrassed for him; he clearly had not been briefed and didn't know what was in the bill."
This is the inevitable result when an incompetent who is on record in his own autobiography referring to his brief and only stint at a private business as "a spy behind enemy lines" gets to be in charge of an economy that is fueled by such "enemies".
What irony.
(Boortz link)
This is the inevitable result when an incompetent who is on record in his own autobiography referring to his brief and only stint at a private business as "a spy behind enemy lines" gets to be in charge of an economy that is fueled by such "enemies".
What irony.
(Boortz link)
Off topic but interesting, at least to me
We just spent a great afternoon at the Scottsdale Gun Club. One of the highlights of the outing was discussing the relative merits of 115 versus 124 grain 9mm ammo for the Glock 19 with the very nice, mid-70's or so grandmotherly lady who was absolutely tearing up her targets in the bay next to ours. Her husband was having quite the time keeping up with her.
It was truly a wonderful sight to behold, and the example she set once again proves how the shooting sports can be safely enjoyed by all people regardless of sex or age.
You go, girl!
It was truly a wonderful sight to behold, and the example she set once again proves how the shooting sports can be safely enjoyed by all people regardless of sex or age.
You go, girl!
Sunday, March 28, 2010
A Nanny-state roundup
A gaggle of random tidbits from the formerly mighty British Empire, now sadly transformed into a faded laughingstock of a Nanny state:
1. Two Australian feral youths attacked a police officer and continued to punch and kick him while the cop was unconscious even after his partner, apparently conditioned by that PC society to be afraid of his own service firearm, drew down on the thugs and unsuccessfullyordered begged the teens to stop bashing his coworker:
"Police prosecutor Kieren Self said Constable Chris Shanco drew his firearm while his colleague Constable Karl Ah Shay was being bashed at Innisfail on Saturday, only to be goaded by one of the attackers who asked him: 'Are you going to shoot us?'."
Seems like a completely justified use of deadly force to us. Feel free to come to your partner's defense at any time, Constable Shanco. Any time indeed.
One wonders what would happen if the victim hadn't been a "special person" - would Shanco have simply run away in tears?
Sadly, the story gets even more pathetic. The article reports that the attack continued until innocent bystanders stopped it.
Don't count on being protected by the police Down Under. It says a lot for the law-abiding population there that even after their government has completely disarmed them, effectively preventing them from defending themselves, they're still willing to bail out the cops who apparently won't even help themselves.
2. Several hundred cops in Nottingham, England hit the city streets on a recent Saturday night to unlawfully detain, search, metal detect, drug test (!) and otherwise completely violate the civil rights of a large number of law-abiding teens who were engaged in nothing more sinister than riding the local buses, all in the name of knife control:
"The major operation involved 200 officers as part of a Home Office project targeting 13 to 24-year-olds.
Officers and a specially-trained dog met young people coming off a number of bus routes.
Metal detectors were used in an effort to find concealed weapons while drug testing was also carried out."
Perhaps most tellingly, the article fails to inform the reader just how many evil, banned knives were recovered during this overkill of an operation, which leads us to believe that none were found - which renders this "Checkpoint Charlie" approach to crime-fighting a complete waste of public resources, not to mention an appalling abuse of authority.
3. Teachers at a school in Wiltshire, England left a five-year-old boy stranded alone in a 20-foot-tall tree after he climbed it during a recess period because those pesky "health and safety" regulations that seemingly rule every facet of life over there apparently expressly forbid them from helping kids out of such a predicament.
Incredibly, the supposed "adults" left the kid alone and returned to class:
"But instead of helping him, staff followed guidelines and retreated inside the school building to ‘observe from a distance’ so the child would not get ‘distracted and fall’."
This "observation" went on for forty-five minutes.
Finally, a 38-year-old woman (and mother of a six-year-old herself) with an ounce of common sense named Kim Barrett happened along the street beside the deserted schoolyard and helped the poor tot down, returning him to the building. Was the staff thankful? Yeah, right. They had Ms. Barrett arrested for trespassing:
"Miss Barrett, a part-time cleaner, said: ‘I felt really angry because I felt I had saved the school and this boy from something that could have been far worse, and that instead of thanking me I was under investigation.
‘It was ridiculous. He was all on his own, there was no one near him and you couldn't see the school buildings from where he was.
‘Not only was he at least 6ft off the ground, but someone taller than me could easily have reached in from the pavement and plucked him off the branch.
"The school say he was being watched but that's impossible because there is no line of sight from the school building to the tree.
'I am a mother myself and I find it a bit ridiculous that the school's policy is to leave a child up a tree. I would be very angry if this happened to my child.
'I think this is a big cover up and that the school obviously had no idea he was there. When I took him in they had no idea he was missing.'"
Undoubtedly. We think that Ms. Barrett could run that school a whole lot better than the buffoons who are currently in charge.
4. Sal Miah, who owns a curry restaurant in East Sussex, England, caught two teen hoodlums red-handed smashing into his beer cooler. He stopped them, sat them down by the bar in his place and called the cops, who promptly showed up and arrested... Mr. Miah, for assault and battery:
"The married father-of-five spent five hours in a police cell and had his DNA, fingerprints and police mugshot taken.
Mr Miah, who has run the Raj Poot restaurant in Crowborough, East Sussex, for 14 years, was finally released at 4am after receiving a caution for assault and battery, which will stay on his record for five years."
Insanity.
"As officers put him in the back of a patrol car, he said the laughing yobs (a large gang of the youths' friends, who showed up and tried to kick in the door of the restaurant in order to free their buddies) hurled abuse and mocked him with shouts of 'You're nicked'."
Mr. Miah sounds like a sensible, upstanding citizen. It's a real shame we're seemingly never again going to travel to England due to just this type of out-of-control youth violence. We would otherwise gladly patronize his establishment.
5. A South Shropshire, England woman has been prosecuted by the Crown for failing to turn in to the government an old coin she found in her own garden when she was a little girl:
"A court heard the silver piedfort marking Charles IV's ascension to the French throne in 1322 was discovered by Miss Harding 14 years ago as she worked in the garden with her mother.
Following her mother's death a short time later, Miss Harding kept the 1.4g item as a memento until she eventually approached museum experts with it last year who identified it as a piedfort, but she did not inform the coroner...
...Under the Treasure Act 1996, treasure is defined as any single object at least 300 years old which is not a coin but has a precious metal content of at least 10 per cent.
The Act gives a finder 14 days to inform the local coroner of potential treasure and creates an offence of failing to carry out that duty where this is not followed."
It seems that there no longer is such a thing as private property rights in England, and the government can just come in willy-nilly and take anything they wish simply because they can.
"Treasure Act", indeed. Let's not give our Congress any ideas. The Antiques Roadshow folks must be sweating bullets right about now.
This is the model society that our dear President would have us emulate. Please help stop him.
1. Two Australian feral youths attacked a police officer and continued to punch and kick him while the cop was unconscious even after his partner, apparently conditioned by that PC society to be afraid of his own service firearm, drew down on the thugs and unsuccessfully
"Police prosecutor Kieren Self said Constable Chris Shanco drew his firearm while his colleague Constable Karl Ah Shay was being bashed at Innisfail on Saturday, only to be goaded by one of the attackers who asked him: 'Are you going to shoot us?'."
Seems like a completely justified use of deadly force to us. Feel free to come to your partner's defense at any time, Constable Shanco. Any time indeed.
One wonders what would happen if the victim hadn't been a "special person" - would Shanco have simply run away in tears?
Sadly, the story gets even more pathetic. The article reports that the attack continued until innocent bystanders stopped it.
Don't count on being protected by the police Down Under. It says a lot for the law-abiding population there that even after their government has completely disarmed them, effectively preventing them from defending themselves, they're still willing to bail out the cops who apparently won't even help themselves.
2. Several hundred cops in Nottingham, England hit the city streets on a recent Saturday night to unlawfully detain, search, metal detect, drug test (!) and otherwise completely violate the civil rights of a large number of law-abiding teens who were engaged in nothing more sinister than riding the local buses, all in the name of knife control:
"The major operation involved 200 officers as part of a Home Office project targeting 13 to 24-year-olds.
Officers and a specially-trained dog met young people coming off a number of bus routes.
Metal detectors were used in an effort to find concealed weapons while drug testing was also carried out."
Perhaps most tellingly, the article fails to inform the reader just how many evil, banned knives were recovered during this overkill of an operation, which leads us to believe that none were found - which renders this "Checkpoint Charlie" approach to crime-fighting a complete waste of public resources, not to mention an appalling abuse of authority.
3. Teachers at a school in Wiltshire, England left a five-year-old boy stranded alone in a 20-foot-tall tree after he climbed it during a recess period because those pesky "health and safety" regulations that seemingly rule every facet of life over there apparently expressly forbid them from helping kids out of such a predicament.
Incredibly, the supposed "adults" left the kid alone and returned to class:
"But instead of helping him, staff followed guidelines and retreated inside the school building to ‘observe from a distance’ so the child would not get ‘distracted and fall’."
This "observation" went on for forty-five minutes.
Finally, a 38-year-old woman (and mother of a six-year-old herself) with an ounce of common sense named Kim Barrett happened along the street beside the deserted schoolyard and helped the poor tot down, returning him to the building. Was the staff thankful? Yeah, right. They had Ms. Barrett arrested for trespassing:
"Miss Barrett, a part-time cleaner, said: ‘I felt really angry because I felt I had saved the school and this boy from something that could have been far worse, and that instead of thanking me I was under investigation.
‘It was ridiculous. He was all on his own, there was no one near him and you couldn't see the school buildings from where he was.
‘Not only was he at least 6ft off the ground, but someone taller than me could easily have reached in from the pavement and plucked him off the branch.
"The school say he was being watched but that's impossible because there is no line of sight from the school building to the tree.
'I am a mother myself and I find it a bit ridiculous that the school's policy is to leave a child up a tree. I would be very angry if this happened to my child.
'I think this is a big cover up and that the school obviously had no idea he was there. When I took him in they had no idea he was missing.'"
Undoubtedly. We think that Ms. Barrett could run that school a whole lot better than the buffoons who are currently in charge.
4. Sal Miah, who owns a curry restaurant in East Sussex, England, caught two teen hoodlums red-handed smashing into his beer cooler. He stopped them, sat them down by the bar in his place and called the cops, who promptly showed up and arrested... Mr. Miah, for assault and battery:
"The married father-of-five spent five hours in a police cell and had his DNA, fingerprints and police mugshot taken.
Mr Miah, who has run the Raj Poot restaurant in Crowborough, East Sussex, for 14 years, was finally released at 4am after receiving a caution for assault and battery, which will stay on his record for five years."
Insanity.
"As officers put him in the back of a patrol car, he said the laughing yobs (a large gang of the youths' friends, who showed up and tried to kick in the door of the restaurant in order to free their buddies) hurled abuse and mocked him with shouts of 'You're nicked'."
Mr. Miah sounds like a sensible, upstanding citizen. It's a real shame we're seemingly never again going to travel to England due to just this type of out-of-control youth violence. We would otherwise gladly patronize his establishment.
5. A South Shropshire, England woman has been prosecuted by the Crown for failing to turn in to the government an old coin she found in her own garden when she was a little girl:
"A court heard the silver piedfort marking Charles IV's ascension to the French throne in 1322 was discovered by Miss Harding 14 years ago as she worked in the garden with her mother.
Following her mother's death a short time later, Miss Harding kept the 1.4g item as a memento until she eventually approached museum experts with it last year who identified it as a piedfort, but she did not inform the coroner...
...Under the Treasure Act 1996, treasure is defined as any single object at least 300 years old which is not a coin but has a precious metal content of at least 10 per cent.
The Act gives a finder 14 days to inform the local coroner of potential treasure and creates an offence of failing to carry out that duty where this is not followed."
It seems that there no longer is such a thing as private property rights in England, and the government can just come in willy-nilly and take anything they wish simply because they can.
"Treasure Act", indeed. Let's not give our Congress any ideas. The Antiques Roadshow folks must be sweating bullets right about now.
This is the model society that our dear President would have us emulate. Please help stop him.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Turnabout is fair play
(Darleen Click at Protein Wisdom) (click for a bigger image)
The artist is getting a lot of flack over her work, as any negative editorial portrayals of President Obama's recent streak of forcing his political will on the country against the clear will of the people (however fact-based such criticism might be) are now being labeled "racist" and "terrorism-inducing" by the lefties in the mainstream media, who mostly kept their hypocritical mouths shut when their heroes in the visual arts world were merrily making "mocumentaries" about the assassination of President George W. Bush, or authoring a blizzard of cartoons with the unifying theme of depicting Bush as a clueless, smirking chimp. (Try comparing the current President to a dumb monkey, and watch the nuclear firestorm begin.)
We think Click's cartoon is actually pretty spot-on, very well done and completely within the rules that the liberal lefties themselves have put forth as acceptable conduct.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Next up for ramming down the country's gullet by our "masters"...
... mass amnesty for illegal immigrants "comprehensive immigration reform", according to Arizona's own ex-governor Janet Napolitano, who should know because she (for now) remains head of Homeland Security, despite demonstrating complete incompetence at the task.
She informed us of this disappointing (but not entirely unexpected) nugget of information while speaking at Arizona State University yesterday.
This action, should it succeed, will have the effect (absolutely intended by the President and his minions, by the way) of adding 20 to 30 million thankful new Democratic voters within a very short period of time, ensuring a Congressional majority for generations to come that's hell-bent on turning us into a socialist paradise. Oh, and in case anyone hadn't yet realized this, all of these mass-forgiven line-jumpers will be immediately eligible for health-care benefits, courtesy of the American taxpayer.
Anyone else desperate for November to hurry up and arrive?
She informed us of this disappointing (but not entirely unexpected) nugget of information while speaking at Arizona State University yesterday.
This action, should it succeed, will have the effect (absolutely intended by the President and his minions, by the way) of adding 20 to 30 million thankful new Democratic voters within a very short period of time, ensuring a Congressional majority for generations to come that's hell-bent on turning us into a socialist paradise. Oh, and in case anyone hadn't yet realized this, all of these mass-forgiven line-jumpers will be immediately eligible for health-care benefits, courtesy of the American taxpayer.
Anyone else desperate for November to hurry up and arrive?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The haunting strains of the world's smallest violin
The liberal Democrats in Congress are starting to worry about the security of their own precious behinds after getting thousands of angry calls and letters (as well as some bricks through a few of their headquarters windows) after their vote on Sunday to enslave the citizenry of this country.
Well, what did they expect would happen once they unilaterally took over one-sixth of America's economy, all the while coming out with chilling statements, such as the following one from John Dingell, D(espot)-MI, that make absolutely clear this legislation has as its chief aim "controlling the people"?
Keep on running off at the mouth like that about your true motives, liberal Democrats, and anything that befalls you will be completely your fault. Act like traitors, get treated like traitors.
Well, what did they expect would happen once they unilaterally took over one-sixth of America's economy, all the while coming out with chilling statements, such as the following one from John Dingell, D(espot)-MI, that make absolutely clear this legislation has as its chief aim "controlling the people"?
Keep on running off at the mouth like that about your true motives, liberal Democrats, and anything that befalls you will be completely your fault. Act like traitors, get treated like traitors.
A couple of interesting questions
If this spankin' new government health-care "entitlement" is such a great idea, why did the very people who wrote it exempt themselves, as well as their benevolent masters, from its grasping tentacles?
"The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well. A weasel-worded definition of "staff" includes only the members' personal staff in the new system; the committee staff that drafted the legislation opted themselves out. Because they were more familiar with the contents of the law than anyone in the country, it says a lot that they carved out their own special loophole. Anyway, the law is intended to affect "ordinary Americans," according to Vice President Joe Biden (who - being a heartbeat away from the presidency - also is not covered), not Washington insiders."
That figures. "Some animals are more equal than others", to quote author George Orwell, who is proven evermore prescient by the day.
For that matter, if this is an idea "whose time has come", then why does President Obama feel compelled to once again hit the campaign trail in order to shill for his pet project, even though the darn thing is passed and signed into law?
"The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well. A weasel-worded definition of "staff" includes only the members' personal staff in the new system; the committee staff that drafted the legislation opted themselves out. Because they were more familiar with the contents of the law than anyone in the country, it says a lot that they carved out their own special loophole. Anyway, the law is intended to affect "ordinary Americans," according to Vice President Joe Biden (who - being a heartbeat away from the presidency - also is not covered), not Washington insiders."
That figures. "Some animals are more equal than others", to quote author George Orwell, who is proven evermore prescient by the day.
For that matter, if this is an idea "whose time has come", then why does President Obama feel compelled to once again hit the campaign trail in order to shill for his pet project, even though the darn thing is passed and signed into law?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The fight for our country continues
The Attorneys-General of 14 states as of this writing have now filed suit to prevent the imposition of the Democrats' health-care "reform" law. If yours isn't among them, perhaps a polite call is in order.
On the same topic, Neal Boortz has perhaps the best one-paragraph summation we've seen of the atrocity that was enacted into law at today's sham of a signing ceremony,
"Never in the history of the United States has the Congress ever passed a law which required any private citizen to enter into a contract with another citizen or a private business against their will... never, that is, until now. How's that for change?"
which took place a mere 36 hours after the bill was rammed through Congress, despite Obama's solemn campaign pledge to let any such legislation sit on his desk for five days before earning his signature.
We suppose he was just too excited to wait, just like any other immature three-year-old would be.
"This is what change looks like"
Maybe so, but the White House is also quickly going to discover what "massive resistance" looks like as well.
On the same topic, Neal Boortz has perhaps the best one-paragraph summation we've seen of the atrocity that was enacted into law at today's sham of a signing ceremony,
"Never in the history of the United States has the Congress ever passed a law which required any private citizen to enter into a contract with another citizen or a private business against their will... never, that is, until now. How's that for change?"
which took place a mere 36 hours after the bill was rammed through Congress, despite Obama's solemn campaign pledge to let any such legislation sit on his desk for five days before earning his signature.
We suppose he was just too excited to wait, just like any other immature three-year-old would be.
"This is what change looks like"
Maybe so, but the White House is also quickly going to discover what "massive resistance" looks like as well.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The fallout begins
Lisa Stroud, whose fantastic and welcoming to all (even wacky bloggers such as ourselves) coffee shop we patronize on a near-daily basis and who typifies the typical American small-business owner, surgically throws some reality at the Facebook users on her page who crowed about the utterly unconstitutional "mandate" the liberals in Congress shoved down all of our throats last night:
my employees pay less in their current plans than what this bill is estimated in costing them in the near future and what's even better is they have a choice...
I don't pretend to be the parent of my employees. i don't pretend to know what is better for someone else then they do. Everybody has the right to have insurance and to feel secure in the insurance they do have but that is not what passed tonight."
"they should have reformed the insurance system not require Americans to spend more money. for those of us who have the privilege to own a business or have a job, we will pay for this! you will pay when you buy groceries, when you shop at Christmas-nothing is free, and it is the people who will pay and some of us will pay twice...
my employees pay less in their current plans than what this bill is estimated in costing them in the near future and what's even better is they have a choice...
I don't pretend to be the parent of my employees. i don't pretend to know what is better for someone else then they do. Everybody has the right to have insurance and to feel secure in the insurance they do have but that is not what passed tonight."
You've lost Middle America, Mr. President, probably for good. Enjoy the rest of your single term in office.
UPDATE: Lisa reminds us that she is a liberal feminist who VOTED for Obama and she's still disgusted by this legislation (by the way, her shop was also Second Amendment-friendly long before Starbucks had to confront the issue).
Again, if you've lost the likes of her, Mr. President, your political goose is cooked.
UPDATE: Lisa reminds us that she is a liberal feminist who VOTED for Obama and she's still disgusted by this legislation (by the way, her shop was also Second Amendment-friendly long before Starbucks had to confront the issue).
Again, if you've lost the likes of her, Mr. President, your political goose is cooked.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
We figured as much
A 16-year-old boy has been arrested in the recent New Jersey Wal-Mart kerfluffle, for which people are now unfairly boycotting the store for something that was clearly not their fault.
Here's part of our commentary the other day about the incident in question:
"Sounds like the type of unfunny, childish skulduggery that several of our classmates were juvenile enough to commit back in our high school days."
Did we call it or what?
Here's part of our commentary the other day about the incident in question:
"Sounds like the type of unfunny, childish skulduggery that several of our classmates were juvenile enough to commit back in our high school days."
Did we call it or what?
Friday, March 19, 2010
He nails it
Billy Beck uses his inimitable style to weigh in on the upcoming rape of the American citizen in the guise of "health care reform" (warning: language and very intemperate thoughts):
"John Boccieri (D-Ohio), this morning:
This morning during your little presser, in which you could only hardly admit what you are going to do, I listened to you invoke your mother. I have questions for you. As she was rearing you, did she teach you that it was okay to steal from others? Hmm? You, in your singular person, could never claim a right to summarily intrude on my life and take my money for anything. What makes you think that this changes just because you sit in that assembly in Washington? Where do you get the right to do this to me?
I heard some woman droning on about her autistic child. Well, since you have stepped all the way across every moral line in this matter, I have something to explain to you.I don't care about that little bastard. As long as he's in play in this -- and you started it -- I hope he curls up in a little ball and drops dead at his mother's feet.
Do you understand? I don't care: you sonsofbitches are pricing me right out of the market for "care" every single day, now.This will be your vaunted "legacy" -- the presumptive and pretentious ego-stroke of your kind in this age: you will go down in history with the spilled blood of the original American generosity on your hands, and its destruction forever attached to your name.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but it doesn't matter.
I will never pay for this. Get my prison-cell ready, motherfucker, because I'm coming."
What he said, in spades.
"John Boccieri (D-Ohio), this morning:
"If in this job I can save one life one family one person, this job is worth it.""Worth it", to whom, John?
This morning during your little presser, in which you could only hardly admit what you are going to do, I listened to you invoke your mother. I have questions for you. As she was rearing you, did she teach you that it was okay to steal from others? Hmm? You, in your singular person, could never claim a right to summarily intrude on my life and take my money for anything. What makes you think that this changes just because you sit in that assembly in Washington? Where do you get the right to do this to me?
I heard some woman droning on about her autistic child. Well, since you have stepped all the way across every moral line in this matter, I have something to explain to you.I don't care about that little bastard. As long as he's in play in this -- and you started it -- I hope he curls up in a little ball and drops dead at his mother's feet.
Do you understand? I don't care: you sonsofbitches are pricing me right out of the market for "care" every single day, now.This will be your vaunted "legacy" -- the presumptive and pretentious ego-stroke of your kind in this age: you will go down in history with the spilled blood of the original American generosity on your hands, and its destruction forever attached to your name.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but it doesn't matter.
I will never pay for this. Get my prison-cell ready, motherfucker, because I'm coming."
What he said, in spades.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week...
... is Davidson County, Tennessee Sheriff's Deputy Lt. Tanya Mayhew, for forcibly ripping the gold "grill" out of the mouth of prisoner Anthony McCoy while he was being booked into the county jail, even after he told her that the jewelry was permanently cemented to his teeth.
(McCoy was being booked for failure to pay child support, by the way; a heinous felony that, at least to Ms. Mayhew's way of thinking, makes him deserving of such abuse, it seems.)
What's even worse is the revelation that Mayhew apparently made up the rule about "no mouth jewelry" all on her own:
"Metro is at a loss to explain why the lieutenant would try to remove the grill because there was no policy against having gold-plated teeth, even if they weren't permanently attached."
We can only surmise, then, that good deputy views inflicting massive amounts of completely unnecessary pain on shackled and helpless people as just another enjoyable perk of her job.
(By the way, McCoy was given only Tylenol for his injuries, and was denied any further dental treatment until 10 days after the incident.)
The resulting damage that Lt. Mayhew caused to McCoy's mouth caused $10,000 to fix, and he is also going to receive a very nice $95,000 payment courtesy of the chump taxpayers of that locale.
Ms. Mayhew? She's still employed, of course:
"Mayhew was later demoted and suspended for five days because of the incident."
If you were to cost your employer close to six figures by inventing a completely dunderheaded (as well as abusive) policy out of thin air as well as violated the plethora of state and federal laws governing your profession in the process, would you still have a job?
We didn't think so.
(McCoy was being booked for failure to pay child support, by the way; a heinous felony that, at least to Ms. Mayhew's way of thinking, makes him deserving of such abuse, it seems.)
What's even worse is the revelation that Mayhew apparently made up the rule about "no mouth jewelry" all on her own:
"Metro is at a loss to explain why the lieutenant would try to remove the grill because there was no policy against having gold-plated teeth, even if they weren't permanently attached."
We can only surmise, then, that good deputy views inflicting massive amounts of completely unnecessary pain on shackled and helpless people as just another enjoyable perk of her job.
(By the way, McCoy was given only Tylenol for his injuries, and was denied any further dental treatment until 10 days after the incident.)
The resulting damage that Lt. Mayhew caused to McCoy's mouth caused $10,000 to fix, and he is also going to receive a very nice $95,000 payment courtesy of the chump taxpayers of that locale.
Ms. Mayhew? She's still employed, of course:
"Mayhew was later demoted and suspended for five days because of the incident."
If you were to cost your employer close to six figures by inventing a completely dunderheaded (as well as abusive) policy out of thin air as well as violated the plethora of state and federal laws governing your profession in the process, would you still have a job?
We didn't think so.
The Three Stooges Meet The Census
An online correspondent reports on the chaos surrounding the government's attempt to accomplish the narrowly-defined task of simply counting everyone in the nation, despite having a full decade to prepare for the job since the last attempt took place:
"The incredible absurdity of the Obama Census is the ineptitude with which it is being conducted. Here in northwestern Arkansas, they trained probably 500 people for a full week, paying them hourly as well as mileage from their homes. They originally promised ten weeks of work, which dropped to five weeks when the hiring paperwork was handed out. Then the work lasted seven to nine days. Now everybody is laid off.
But they are still training people! Those laid off are being told they'll be called back for the next phase -- but no phone calls.
And the turnover at the Springdale, Arkansas, office is incredible. Constant firings and promotions. Policies are announced at 10 a.m. (absolutely no overtime, for example: anybody turning in overtime will be terminated without recourse, Then at 4 p.m. on Friday, they announced that they needed everybody to put in overtime on Saturday.
Deadlines change on the half-hour. Timesheets are turned in daily. In many businesses, to cut costs, timesheets are turned in once every two weeks or on the 15th and 30th/31st. No, Census enumerators must even come in on Sundays and get paid a half hour plus mileage from their homes to fill out a timesheet reporting that they did no work other than coming in to do their timesheet.
Incredible!"
And these are the same clowns who solemnly vow to transform the American health care system (a full one-sixth of our economy) into a respected model of efficiency and cost savings?
Yeah, right.
"The incredible absurdity of the Obama Census is the ineptitude with which it is being conducted. Here in northwestern Arkansas, they trained probably 500 people for a full week, paying them hourly as well as mileage from their homes. They originally promised ten weeks of work, which dropped to five weeks when the hiring paperwork was handed out. Then the work lasted seven to nine days. Now everybody is laid off.
But they are still training people! Those laid off are being told they'll be called back for the next phase -- but no phone calls.
And the turnover at the Springdale, Arkansas, office is incredible. Constant firings and promotions. Policies are announced at 10 a.m. (absolutely no overtime, for example: anybody turning in overtime will be terminated without recourse, Then at 4 p.m. on Friday, they announced that they needed everybody to put in overtime on Saturday.
Deadlines change on the half-hour. Timesheets are turned in daily. In many businesses, to cut costs, timesheets are turned in once every two weeks or on the 15th and 30th/31st. No, Census enumerators must even come in on Sundays and get paid a half hour plus mileage from their homes to fill out a timesheet reporting that they did no work other than coming in to do their timesheet.
Incredible!"
And these are the same clowns who solemnly vow to transform the American health care system (a full one-sixth of our economy) into a respected model of efficiency and cost savings?
Yeah, right.
We should be lucky they didn't faint dead away
Someone, apparently a microcephalic troublemaker unconnected to Wal-Mart, commandeered a microphone at one of their stores in Washington Township, New Jersey last Sunday evening and made the following bogus announcement:
"Attention Wal-Mart customers: All black people leave the store now.''
Sounds like the type of unfunny, childish skulduggery that several of our classmates were juvenile enough to commit back in our high school days.
Two (presumably) black women in the store are understandably quite upset (along with the store's employees themselves, the story notes the pair as generously saying) and ask the store's management to broadcast an apology over the same PA system. Their request is immediately granted.
Is that enough to soothe the delicate egos of the two aggrieved women? No way:
"[Patricia] Covington and [Shelia] Ellington are boycotting the store."
Why? What possible complicity does Wal-Mart have in this incident? It wasn't one of their workers that played the "prank", and the store immediately did whatever the women asked of them at the time to calm the situation and reassure the patrons that the employees had nothing to do with the disgusting display. Just what, pray tell, could the company have done to prevent this admittedly rude, hurtful and annoying but hardly felonious incident?
"'I can't believe it in this day and age,' Covington told the paper. 'Wal-Mart needs to be more responsible.'"
Oh please, ma'am. Spare us your manufactured outrage. What, should the store place all of its intercom phones around the sales floor under lock and key because of an unfortunate incident (that doesn't even appear to be the fault of the company) in one out of how many thousands of stores? Then professional complainers like you will no doubt kvetch about how long (because of racism, of course) it takes to summon assistance to unlock the DVD cabinet.
Ms. Covington and Ms. Ellington need to grow some thicker skin, and Wal-Mart should strongly encourage them to make their Chinese-made shoddy goods purchases elsewhere.
"Attention Wal-Mart customers: All black people leave the store now.''
Sounds like the type of unfunny, childish skulduggery that several of our classmates were juvenile enough to commit back in our high school days.
Two (presumably) black women in the store are understandably quite upset (along with the store's employees themselves, the story notes the pair as generously saying) and ask the store's management to broadcast an apology over the same PA system. Their request is immediately granted.
Is that enough to soothe the delicate egos of the two aggrieved women? No way:
"[Patricia] Covington and [Shelia] Ellington are boycotting the store."
Why? What possible complicity does Wal-Mart have in this incident? It wasn't one of their workers that played the "prank", and the store immediately did whatever the women asked of them at the time to calm the situation and reassure the patrons that the employees had nothing to do with the disgusting display. Just what, pray tell, could the company have done to prevent this admittedly rude, hurtful and annoying but hardly felonious incident?
"'I can't believe it in this day and age,' Covington told the paper. 'Wal-Mart needs to be more responsible.'"
Oh please, ma'am. Spare us your manufactured outrage. What, should the store place all of its intercom phones around the sales floor under lock and key because of an unfortunate incident (that doesn't even appear to be the fault of the company) in one out of how many thousands of stores? Then professional complainers like you will no doubt kvetch about how long (because of racism, of course) it takes to summon assistance to unlock the DVD cabinet.
Ms. Covington and Ms. Ellington need to grow some thicker skin, and Wal-Mart should strongly encourage them to make their Chinese-made shoddy goods purchases elsewhere.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
You're having a major effect
The Washington and Scottsdale phone lines for our local Congressman, Harry Mitchell, have been dead solid busy all day. We finally managed to get the voice mail for the Washington extension, only to be regretfully informed that the mailbox was full.
Representative Mitchell is widely viewed to be a safe "yes" vote for President Obama's health carePonzi scheme "reform" bill. Perhaps this heartwarming massive outpouring of outrage from his constituents over that fact will serve to change his mind.
Ignore the emphatically stated wishes of your voters at your political peril, Mr. Mitchell.
Representative Mitchell is widely viewed to be a safe "yes" vote for President Obama's health care
Ignore the emphatically stated wishes of your voters at your political peril, Mr. Mitchell.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines
"Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest"
Of course he does.
On arrest, mind you, not conviction. Even if the arrest is later found to be bogus, your private genetic information would be forever maintained a a government computer somewhere, just like what is standard procedure in the Nanny State Utopia of Great Britain right now.
Yeesh. And people who put this guy in office were all so concerned with Bush and Cheney's attacks on civil liberties. They've got nothing on this group of commissars.
Of course he does.
On arrest, mind you, not conviction. Even if the arrest is later found to be bogus, your private genetic information would be forever maintained a a government computer somewhere, just like what is standard procedure in the Nanny State Utopia of Great Britain right now.
Yeesh. And people who put this guy in office were all so concerned with Bush and Cheney's attacks on civil liberties. They've got nothing on this group of commissars.
Why I carry a handgun for protection, Vol. 30
So that if I happen to be assaulted while exercising in a state park, I won't have to resort to jumping off a cliff in order to escape my attacker, like the poor woman in Malibu (!), California had to do the other day to get away from the thug who was trying to rape her, and who callously ended up stealing her car after he didn't get what he wanted:
"She told deputies she had finished a run at about noon at Point Dume State Beach and was standing at the edge of a cliff when she was grabbed from behind. She says she and the man struggled for several minutes before she was able to break away. That's when the woman ran and jumped off the cliff.
Deputies say the suspect then escaped in the woman's Toyota Land Cruiser."
Naturally, this incident happened in the "gun-free" paradise that is California (and in a tony, supposedly "safe" place to boot), where law-abiding citizens who aren't rich, famous or connected are pretty much rendered defenseless by their overseers, and the only people who end up carrying firearms in public are the criminals and thugs who don't obey any of society's laws, much less the ones dealing with guns.
That's why we will never reside there.
"She told deputies she had finished a run at about noon at Point Dume State Beach and was standing at the edge of a cliff when she was grabbed from behind. She says she and the man struggled for several minutes before she was able to break away. That's when the woman ran and jumped off the cliff.
Deputies say the suspect then escaped in the woman's Toyota Land Cruiser."
Naturally, this incident happened in the "gun-free" paradise that is California (and in a tony, supposedly "safe" place to boot), where law-abiding citizens who aren't rich, famous or connected are pretty much rendered defenseless by their overseers, and the only people who end up carrying firearms in public are the criminals and thugs who don't obey any of society's laws, much less the ones dealing with guns.
That's why we will never reside there.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
So what?
An attorney for one of two off-duty Pennsylvania police officers who were partying with Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback (and accused serial sexual batterer) Ben Roethlisberger in a Georgia nightclub at the time he is accused of molesting a 20-year-old woman is stating that his client, as well as the fellow vacationing officer, didn't see their allegedly grope-prone pal do anything wrong on the night in question.
Because, you know, people who happen to be employed as police officers never lie to protect their rich, famous and well-connected buddies, and that what they do for a living automatically makes them absolutely incapable of corruption.
Now, we aren't accusing these cops of covering for Roethlisberger; we're not arguing they're not, either. That's for a prosecutor and jury to decide. What we are stating is that the statements of the two men should be given the same weight as one given by any other law-abiding witness, no more and no less, especially seeing as how the pair aren't even peace officers in the state where the incident is said to have happened:
"'They were not there in their official capacity,' said [Michael] Santicola, who represents [Coraopolis, Pennsylvania Officer Anthony] Barravecchio but said [Pennsylvania State Trooper Ed] Joyner is also a longtime friend."
Then the employment status of the men should have no bearing whatsoever (whether positive or negative) on their reliability as witnesses in the case, given their close relationship to Roethlisberger and particularly given that the article implies that at least one of the two may have been drinking that night. Barravecchio and Joyner should be viewed the same as any other possibly intoxicated person loyally sticking up for a friend who may or may not have done something very stupid, if not criminal.
Which also begs the question - if the two officers are so sure nothing untoward happened that night, why aren't they personally out there making statements clearing their friend, instead of having a paid attorney do it? Frank the contractor friend or Tim the office worker buddy sure wouldn't think such a move necessary.
Because, you know, people who happen to be employed as police officers never lie to protect their rich, famous and well-connected buddies, and that what they do for a living automatically makes them absolutely incapable of corruption.
Now, we aren't accusing these cops of covering for Roethlisberger; we're not arguing they're not, either. That's for a prosecutor and jury to decide. What we are stating is that the statements of the two men should be given the same weight as one given by any other law-abiding witness, no more and no less, especially seeing as how the pair aren't even peace officers in the state where the incident is said to have happened:
"'They were not there in their official capacity,' said [Michael] Santicola, who represents [Coraopolis, Pennsylvania Officer Anthony] Barravecchio but said [Pennsylvania State Trooper Ed] Joyner is also a longtime friend."
Then the employment status of the men should have no bearing whatsoever (whether positive or negative) on their reliability as witnesses in the case, given their close relationship to Roethlisberger and particularly given that the article implies that at least one of the two may have been drinking that night. Barravecchio and Joyner should be viewed the same as any other possibly intoxicated person loyally sticking up for a friend who may or may not have done something very stupid, if not criminal.
Which also begs the question - if the two officers are so sure nothing untoward happened that night, why aren't they personally out there making statements clearing their friend, instead of having a paid attorney do it? Frank the contractor friend or Tim the office worker buddy sure wouldn't think such a move necessary.
Guns for all the elites, but not for you
Can anyone explain just what the U.S. Department of Education, of all agencies, could possibly need with 27 tacticaled-up Remington shotguns (with stylishly short 14" barrels that are verboten to civilians who don't jump through the many, many regulatory hoops to get one for themselves, assuming their state "allows" them to own such weaponry in the first place)?
It never fails to amaze us how the government, which as an institution is pretty much completely against the lawful carry of firearms by the citizens it purports to serve, manages to think it's perfectly OK to redundantly equip seemingly every single department under its control with its own armed force of "police".
(Boortz link)
It never fails to amaze us how the government, which as an institution is pretty much completely against the lawful carry of firearms by the citizens it purports to serve, manages to think it's perfectly OK to redundantly equip seemingly every single department under its control with its own armed force of "police".
(Boortz link)
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Lazy, lazy
Miami-based photojournalist Carlos Miller happened to come across an apparently off-duty female Jersey City cop this weekend who thinks it's perfectly OK to park wherever she wants in order to pick up a few groceries, just because of what she happens to do for a living:
Yes, Miller saw her leaving the store with her purchases so no, this was not an official duty call.
This is not why you're given the privilege of a take-home car, ma'am, and yours should be taken away posthaste.
Yes, Miller saw her leaving the store with her purchases so no, this was not an official duty call.
This is not why you're given the privilege of a take-home car, ma'am, and yours should be taken away posthaste.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
An interesting conversation
Yesterday we called the Washington office of Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), who represents our district in Congress. We informed the pleasant lady who answered the telephone that, while we were generally quite happy with the work of our Congressman, if he were to (again!) vote for the passage of President Obama's health-care Ponzi scheme "reform" bill we would then be highly motivated to devote large amounts of time, effort and money towards ensuring that this would be his last term in office.
The lady was then not so pleasant.
No matter - Representative Mitchell and his staff work for us, and it's healthy to remind them of that fact from time to time.
Have you called your representative yet?
The lady was then not so pleasant.
No matter - Representative Mitchell and his staff work for us, and it's healthy to remind them of that fact from time to time.
Have you called your representative yet?
Friday, March 05, 2010
A glutton for punishment?
President Obama, apparently having decided that forcing his mysterious health care Ponzi scheme down the citizens' throats isn't enough overreaching for him and Congress for one year, is beginning to once again ramp up the topic of installing yet another amnesty for illegal aliens (because, you know, the one previously spearheaded by President Reagan in 1986 worked out so well for our country):
"Obama took up the issue privately with his staff Monday in a bid to advance a bill through Congress before lawmakers become too distracted by approaching midterm elections."
"Distracted" = "before November arrives and we lose one, if not both, houses of Congress because we insisted on passing many pieces of legislation that Americans have emphatically stated they do not want."
Today's Democrat party more and more resembles a group of hapless lemmings who are willingly being led to the cliff edge by their charismatic Pied Piper. Is his charm really powerful enough for them to commit mass political suicide of this sort for him?
"The basis of a bill would include a path toward citizenship for the 10.8 million people living in the U.S. illegally. Citizenship would not be granted lightly, the White House said. Undocumented workers would need to register, pay taxes and pay a penalty for violating the law. Failure to comply might result in deportation." (Emphasis ours)
Might? That's the crux of the entire problem, in our view. How about "would definitely" result in deportation? Because that won't be the case, of course. This odious proposal will end up being nothing more than another blatant general amnesty, one that will serve to reward those line-jumpers who didn't wait their turn to immigrate legally, like millions of others do.
This steady march by the liberal left toward Irrelevanceland would be quite amusing, if they weren't so intent on ruining our nation's ideals while making their journey there.
"Obama took up the issue privately with his staff Monday in a bid to advance a bill through Congress before lawmakers become too distracted by approaching midterm elections."
"Distracted" = "before November arrives and we lose one, if not both, houses of Congress because we insisted on passing many pieces of legislation that Americans have emphatically stated they do not want."
Today's Democrat party more and more resembles a group of hapless lemmings who are willingly being led to the cliff edge by their charismatic Pied Piper. Is his charm really powerful enough for them to commit mass political suicide of this sort for him?
"The basis of a bill would include a path toward citizenship for the 10.8 million people living in the U.S. illegally. Citizenship would not be granted lightly, the White House said. Undocumented workers would need to register, pay taxes and pay a penalty for violating the law. Failure to comply might result in deportation." (Emphasis ours)
Might? That's the crux of the entire problem, in our view. How about "would definitely" result in deportation? Because that won't be the case, of course. This odious proposal will end up being nothing more than another blatant general amnesty, one that will serve to reward those line-jumpers who didn't wait their turn to immigrate legally, like millions of others do.
This steady march by the liberal left toward Irrelevanceland would be quite amusing, if they weren't so intent on ruining our nation's ideals while making their journey there.
A reasonable question
Seen over at Scooter Oi's place:
We'd kind of like to have the answer to that question for ourselves.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Why I carry a handgun for protection, Vol. 29
A 23-year-old family man was recently shot and killed in Phoenix, Arizona after he, his wife and mother (celebrating just purchasing a brand new car) happened to see someone attempting to steal two 30-packs of beer from a local Circle K store and said something to the thief (who is apparently an illegal immigrant gang member; his entire family has now been arrested for allegedly helping the thug run away to Mexico) because the victims knew the workers at the shop and were attempting to assist them.
Let's let the first police officer to arrive at the crime scene (full disclosure: he is one of our favorite bloggers, and we link to his site from ours) explain why law-abiding citizens should carry everywhere they legally can at all times:
I was the first person on scene after the shooting happened. This leads to my first point.
1. There is only one person you can trust when it comes to the defense of you, or your loved ones.....YOURSELF!
I was less than a half of a mile from the store when the shooting happened. I was also with 4 other officers. I arrived at the shooting scene less than 2 minutes from the time the trigger was pulled. It wouldn't have mattered if I was in the parking lot in this case.
2. Bad things happen in fractions of a second.
I watched the surveillance camera footage of this incident. From the time the dirt bag pulled his gun, until he shot the victim was about 2 and a half seconds. If you can legally carry a gun, do it! Not in your car, not in your house, but on you! There is very few circumstances I can recall where a person has the time to retrieve a gun from another location when its time to defend yourself.
3. Don't think that you can avoid every situation.
The victim was with his mother and wife. I don't believe he would intentionally put them in harms way. The wife actually told the suspect to just take the beer and leave. The suspect then hit her with his gun. After his wife was pistol whipped, he stepped in front of her in order to protect her. He was shot once in the chest.
4. TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN.....
Nuff said.
5. Tried by 12, or carried by 6.
I know we have had some great debates on when you can legally defend yourself. I know for a fact the family in this case would want there son alive. PERIOD. Whether he was in a legal jam or not.
I feel strongly about these things. My resolve is even stronger after these types of instances, and this is why. When I arrived on scene, I knew the chances of this man living were extremely remote, no matter what was done. I also knew that the Fire Department would not arrive for at least a couple of minutes. So I performed CPR on this dying man, with his wife and mother screaming and crying next to me, so the family would have some type of hope. I then had to stay with the family and get as much information as I could in order to catch the dirt bag.
Please carry your gun. You may never even unholster your weapon, but have it with you. If you think this type of thing could never happen to you, you're wrong. If you think I'm just being paranoid, think about it this way. The next time you get into your car, don't fasten your seat belt. Why wear a seat belt? You're not planning on getting into an accident, right...?
Powerful and thought-provoking. Thanks for sharing your experience and for your service, Officer. It's very much appreciated.
Please follow this professional law-enforcement officer's sensible and hard-won advice.
Let's let the first police officer to arrive at the crime scene (full disclosure: he is one of our favorite bloggers, and we link to his site from ours) explain why law-abiding citizens should carry everywhere they legally can at all times:
I was the first person on scene after the shooting happened. This leads to my first point.
1. There is only one person you can trust when it comes to the defense of you, or your loved ones.....YOURSELF!
I was less than a half of a mile from the store when the shooting happened. I was also with 4 other officers. I arrived at the shooting scene less than 2 minutes from the time the trigger was pulled. It wouldn't have mattered if I was in the parking lot in this case.
2. Bad things happen in fractions of a second.
I watched the surveillance camera footage of this incident. From the time the dirt bag pulled his gun, until he shot the victim was about 2 and a half seconds. If you can legally carry a gun, do it! Not in your car, not in your house, but on you! There is very few circumstances I can recall where a person has the time to retrieve a gun from another location when its time to defend yourself.
3. Don't think that you can avoid every situation.
The victim was with his mother and wife. I don't believe he would intentionally put them in harms way. The wife actually told the suspect to just take the beer and leave. The suspect then hit her with his gun. After his wife was pistol whipped, he stepped in front of her in order to protect her. He was shot once in the chest.
4. TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN.....
Nuff said.
5. Tried by 12, or carried by 6.
I know we have had some great debates on when you can legally defend yourself. I know for a fact the family in this case would want there son alive. PERIOD. Whether he was in a legal jam or not.
I feel strongly about these things. My resolve is even stronger after these types of instances, and this is why. When I arrived on scene, I knew the chances of this man living were extremely remote, no matter what was done. I also knew that the Fire Department would not arrive for at least a couple of minutes. So I performed CPR on this dying man, with his wife and mother screaming and crying next to me, so the family would have some type of hope. I then had to stay with the family and get as much information as I could in order to catch the dirt bag.
Please carry your gun. You may never even unholster your weapon, but have it with you. If you think this type of thing could never happen to you, you're wrong. If you think I'm just being paranoid, think about it this way. The next time you get into your car, don't fasten your seat belt. Why wear a seat belt? You're not planning on getting into an accident, right...?
Powerful and thought-provoking. Thanks for sharing your experience and for your service, Officer. It's very much appreciated.
Please follow this professional law-enforcement officer's sensible and hard-won advice.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Chicago's trampling of the Constitution is finally on trial
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this morning as to just why a 79-year-old law-abiding citizen is unable to possess a handgun in his home in Chicago, Illinois for the purpose of protecting his home (which has been broken into numerous times) and his person (which has been threatened more than once).
As expected, King-Emperor-Mayor-for-Life Richard Daley, who coincidentally enjoys 24-hour protection wherever he goes from an army of police officers, stepped forth to put his two cents in:
"'We have the right for health and safety to pass reasonable laws dealing with the protection and health of the people of the city of Chicago,' Daley said."
Sorry, "Boss". The individual rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights trump whatever nebulous "health and safety rights" arguments you've pulled out of thin air, especially considering that the onerous bans you've saddled your peasants with, which are completely ineffective and have actually made them more unsafe, judging by the astronomical crime and murder rate your thoroughly corrupt burg has enjoyed since the ban was enacted in 1982. By way of comparison, if you and your toadies on the City Council decided that a free-speech ban was necessary for "health and safety", would that be tolerated? Of course not, and neither should this unconstitutional law.
By the way, what's so "reasonable" about a complete ban?
"[Daley] also said the rollback of the city's handgun ban could lead to further erosion of legislation having to do with guns."
Hopefully.
Fox News is reporting that Second Amendment Foundation attorney Alan Gura, who argued the plaintiff's case today and who previously successfully argued the Heller case, received "positive reactions" from the justices. That's a very good sign.
As expected, King-Emperor-Mayor-for-Life Richard Daley, who coincidentally enjoys 24-hour protection wherever he goes from an army of police officers, stepped forth to put his two cents in:
"'We have the right for health and safety to pass reasonable laws dealing with the protection and health of the people of the city of Chicago,' Daley said."
Sorry, "Boss". The individual rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights trump whatever nebulous "health and safety rights" arguments you've pulled out of thin air, especially considering that the onerous bans you've saddled your peasants with, which are completely ineffective and have actually made them more unsafe, judging by the astronomical crime and murder rate your thoroughly corrupt burg has enjoyed since the ban was enacted in 1982. By way of comparison, if you and your toadies on the City Council decided that a free-speech ban was necessary for "health and safety", would that be tolerated? Of course not, and neither should this unconstitutional law.
By the way, what's so "reasonable" about a complete ban?
"[Daley] also said the rollback of the city's handgun ban could lead to further erosion of legislation having to do with guns."
Hopefully.
Fox News is reporting that Second Amendment Foundation attorney Alan Gura, who argued the plaintiff's case today and who previously successfully argued the Heller case, received "positive reactions" from the justices. That's a very good sign.
Monday, March 01, 2010
The Promise-Breaker in Chief
Scanning the news today, we find that not only is President Obama breaking campaign promises at a record pace, he has also managed to cavalierly violate a personal bargain he made to his wife in order to secure her blessing for his run for office:
"Obama promised Michelle when he embarked on his campaign to become president he would quit, at the time he said he was smoking about eight a day.
He told reporters last year he had quit but still had an occasional cigarette, without specifying how many."
While learning how to take medical histories, we were cautioned to always double whatever amount of alcohol or tobacco the patient admitted using to arrive at a more accurate and realistic figure.
In other words, Mr. Obama not only is desperately trying to hide a habit that consists of much more than the "occasional" butt, his word in his private life seemingly is worth about the same as it is in public - not worth a darn.
"Obama promised Michelle when he embarked on his campaign to become president he would quit, at the time he said he was smoking about eight a day.
He told reporters last year he had quit but still had an occasional cigarette, without specifying how many."
While learning how to take medical histories, we were cautioned to always double whatever amount of alcohol or tobacco the patient admitted using to arrive at a more accurate and realistic figure.
In other words, Mr. Obama not only is desperately trying to hide a habit that consists of much more than the "occasional" butt, his word in his private life seemingly is worth about the same as it is in public - not worth a darn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
