Two stories containing very similar (and disturbing) circumstances, featuring a pair of the highly-trained and responsible people that organizations such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center continue to insist with straight faces are the only ones "professional" enough to carry firearms and other self-defense weapons in public:
1. Escambia County, Florida Sheriff's Deputy Mildred Goodwin has been placed on administrative leave after being charged with cruelty toward a child for allegedly beating her own son with a department-issued collapsible baton:
"'Our investigation revealed that Goodwin's chosen discipline method was outside normal standards and met the statutory requirements for child abuse,' Sheriff's spokesman Deputy Chris Welborn said in a news release."
2. Orleans Parish, Louisiana Sheriff's Deputy Cotina Holmes has been placed on administrative leave after being charged with aggravated assault for allegedly "boarding a school bus and brandishing a gun at her 16-year-old son":
"Police spokeswoman Shereese Harper said the deputy was in uniform when she boarded the bus Thursday morning. When she got off the bus, the driver called police, Harper said Saturday."
If these two were willing to mistreat their own children in such a reckless and inappropriate manner, what was their behavior towards total strangers on the street?
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Special outcomes for "special" people
And, for a change, it's the local prosecutor who is at fault and not the police department (which seemingly has done everything right in this case), which makes the outcome that much more frustrating.
The wife of Glendale, Arizona Police Sergeant Brent Thomas reported last summer to Officer Delores Baumann (his superior in the agency) that Thomas had been physically abusive to her for 7 to 10 years, going so far as to provide photographs of injuries allegedly caused by his actions.
Baumann then promptly sat on the information by failing to investigate, file a report or inform the brass because she "was caught in a predicament that had no beneficial outcome regardless of what she did".
(That's definitely the first time we've ever heard of engaging in the performance of one's sworn duties by investigating a legitimate complaint of domestic assault be described as some sort of no-win situation.)
Someone else finally reported the alleged abuse in an anonymous phone call to the department. Glendale Police, to their great credit, investigated and concluded that "Officer" Thomas should "be charged with felony counts of aggravated domestic violence, aggravated assault, criminal damage and interference with a judicial proceeding, a misdemeanor".
The Maricopa County Attorney's Office, however, announced on Tuesday that Thomas will face no criminal charges in the case, citing a lack of evidence.
We find it awfully hard to believe that there just isn't any proof whatsoever of wrongdoing here, especially given that Thomas's own agency has recommended he be hit with felony-level charges. We're absolutely positive that a simple peasant would certainly be facing some kind of legal trouble, that's for sure.
The story does have a bit of a silver lining, as "Officer" Thomas (as well as "Officer" Heather Opp, a subordinate with whom he was having a sexual relationship, something that investigators claim she lied about to them) both resigned in disgrace a couple of months ago after being informed by Glendale Police Chief Steve Conrad that he was going to can them for their actions. "Officer" Baumann, by the way, was given a written reprimand for her obvious dereliction of duty.
Sincere appreciation must go to Chief Conrad for holding his officers accountable to the same laws they enforce on everyone else.
Shame on the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for punting on this one.
The wife of Glendale, Arizona Police Sergeant Brent Thomas reported last summer to Officer Delores Baumann (his superior in the agency) that Thomas had been physically abusive to her for 7 to 10 years, going so far as to provide photographs of injuries allegedly caused by his actions.
Baumann then promptly sat on the information by failing to investigate, file a report or inform the brass because she "was caught in a predicament that had no beneficial outcome regardless of what she did".
(That's definitely the first time we've ever heard of engaging in the performance of one's sworn duties by investigating a legitimate complaint of domestic assault be described as some sort of no-win situation.)
Someone else finally reported the alleged abuse in an anonymous phone call to the department. Glendale Police, to their great credit, investigated and concluded that "Officer" Thomas should "be charged with felony counts of aggravated domestic violence, aggravated assault, criminal damage and interference with a judicial proceeding, a misdemeanor".
The Maricopa County Attorney's Office, however, announced on Tuesday that Thomas will face no criminal charges in the case, citing a lack of evidence.
We find it awfully hard to believe that there just isn't any proof whatsoever of wrongdoing here, especially given that Thomas's own agency has recommended he be hit with felony-level charges. We're absolutely positive that a simple peasant would certainly be facing some kind of legal trouble, that's for sure.
The story does have a bit of a silver lining, as "Officer" Thomas (as well as "Officer" Heather Opp, a subordinate with whom he was having a sexual relationship, something that investigators claim she lied about to them) both resigned in disgrace a couple of months ago after being informed by Glendale Police Chief Steve Conrad that he was going to can them for their actions. "Officer" Baumann, by the way, was given a written reprimand for her obvious dereliction of duty.
Sincere appreciation must go to Chief Conrad for holding his officers accountable to the same laws they enforce on everyone else.
Shame on the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for punting on this one.
Friday, February 25, 2011
From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines
"White House meets lobbyists off campus"
Once again we find Dear Leader cynically ignoring even more of his many lofty campaign promises.
This time he's been caught simultaneously jettisoning both his solemn vow to not allow the foul stench of a common lobbyist to befoul his royal robes as well as his oft-stated commitment to "transparency" by freely releasing all of the names of any people who show up at the White House to plead for various indulgences:
"Caught between their boss’ anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama's aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds — and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident.
It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view — and out of Secret Service logs kept on visitors to the White House and later released to the public."
These lobbyists are like homely women who get callously used for sexual favors by the type of narcissistic men (ahem) who then refuse to be seen with them in public. One sometimes wonders why both jilted groups keep going back for such cruel and cavalier treatment.
The article claims staffers also clandestinely meet with the lobbyists in such public places as a local Caribou Coffee outlet and the rest stop men's room at mile marker 72 on Route 66 in Virginia.
Okay, we made that last one up. But we wouldn't be at all surprised if such secret meetings were indeed taking place in locations more often associated with prostitution, given the seamy nature of Obama's entire Mafia-like Presidency.
Once again we find Dear Leader cynically ignoring even more of his many lofty campaign promises.
This time he's been caught simultaneously jettisoning both his solemn vow to not allow the foul stench of a common lobbyist to befoul his royal robes as well as his oft-stated commitment to "transparency" by freely releasing all of the names of any people who show up at the White House to plead for various indulgences:
"Caught between their boss’ anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama's aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds — and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident.
It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view — and out of Secret Service logs kept on visitors to the White House and later released to the public."
These lobbyists are like homely women who get callously used for sexual favors by the type of narcissistic men (ahem) who then refuse to be seen with them in public. One sometimes wonders why both jilted groups keep going back for such cruel and cavalier treatment.
The article claims staffers also clandestinely meet with the lobbyists in such public places as a local Caribou Coffee outlet and the rest stop men's room at mile marker 72 on Route 66 in Virginia.
Okay, we made that last one up. But we wouldn't be at all surprised if such secret meetings were indeed taking place in locations more often associated with prostitution, given the seamy nature of Obama's entire Mafia-like Presidency.
Petty payback seems to be an official policy over at the "Justice" Department
It sure looks like Eric Holder's Justice Department is blatantly harassing New York Times reporter James Risen by going all Big Brother on the journalist in retaliation for not revealing his sources for a legitimate news story:
"Federal investigators trying to find out who leaked information about a CIA attempt to disrupt Iran's nuclear program obtained a New York Times reporter’s three private credit reports, examined his personal bank records and obtained information about his phone calls and travel, according to a new court filing."
Risen is not suspected of any criminal wrongdoing, by the way. So why all the apparently unlawful digging into his personal life? Well, it appears the Feds are simply just mad at Risen for not telling them what they want to hear, which is that a former CIA worker named Jeffrey Sterling leaked to Risen the material in question. Sterling has been indicted, but that didn't happen until Risen had successfully quashed several subpoenas seeking to compel him to reveal his sources, which sure makes the criminal charge against Sterling look suspiciously like just one more pressure tactic to convince Risen to give up the goods.
Under current Justice policy the Attorney General must personally approve all third-party subpoenas connected to journalists and their stories. Risen and his lawyers have repeatedly asked if the rules were followed in his case but have not received an answer to date, according to the story.
Naturally.
"Federal investigators trying to find out who leaked information about a CIA attempt to disrupt Iran's nuclear program obtained a New York Times reporter’s three private credit reports, examined his personal bank records and obtained information about his phone calls and travel, according to a new court filing."
Risen is not suspected of any criminal wrongdoing, by the way. So why all the apparently unlawful digging into his personal life? Well, it appears the Feds are simply just mad at Risen for not telling them what they want to hear, which is that a former CIA worker named Jeffrey Sterling leaked to Risen the material in question. Sterling has been indicted, but that didn't happen until Risen had successfully quashed several subpoenas seeking to compel him to reveal his sources, which sure makes the criminal charge against Sterling look suspiciously like just one more pressure tactic to convince Risen to give up the goods.
Under current Justice policy the Attorney General must personally approve all third-party subpoenas connected to journalists and their stories. Risen and his lawyers have repeatedly asked if the rules were followed in his case but have not received an answer to date, according to the story.
Naturally.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
One man alone apparently now decides which laws govern us
President Obama has now taken the unprecedented step of unilaterally ordering the Justice Department to not defend a federal law under court challenge, in this case the Defense of Marriage Act.
As always with such matters concerning "Justice", Attorney General Eric Holder is leading the charge in trampling the rule of law:
"'[T]he President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny,' Mr. Holder said. 'The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.'"
Why, we don't need courts at all anymore in this country. Messrs. Obama and Holder have apparently decided that they are the final arbiters about which laws are constitutional and which aren't, and the other two branches of government can simply go suck eggs.
This overreaching of authority on the part of Dear Leader has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage, no matter what side of that contentious issue one favors, but rather is all about a rogue executive branch arrogantly ignoring a statute which was enacted by Congress, signed into law by a president and which has not to date been struck down by a court.
In other words, Dear Leader has just circumvented our entire system of government by basically telling the nation's law enforcement department not to enforce a law. It doesn't matter one bit if that statute concerns a hot-button issue such as gay rights or such a mundane one as the maximum weight of a semitrailer on the interstate - it's the law of the land until it is repealed or struck down, and the Justice Department is duty bound to prosecute under its auspices and defend any challenges to it in court.
Until today, as one more bit of our Constitution is flagrantly discarded by this community organizer and his minions.
The craziest thing about this whole story is that Dear Leader still can't bring himself to take a position one way or the other on the very issue at hand:
"The White House says President Barack Obama is "grappling" with his personal views on gay marriage even as he's ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of a law that bans it."
The only thing about this entire matter he's "grappling" about is the fact that his liberal base overwhelmingly supports gay marriage while at the same time his black voter base overwhelmingly does not. He needs both constituencies to win reelection in 2012, so it will be very interesting to watch him squirm, vacillate and ultimately not take a position one way or the other. Such indecisiveness on his part truly illustrates the opportunistic, rudderless, incompetent leader he really is.
As always with such matters concerning "Justice", Attorney General Eric Holder is leading the charge in trampling the rule of law:
"'[T]he President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny,' Mr. Holder said. 'The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.'"
Why, we don't need courts at all anymore in this country. Messrs. Obama and Holder have apparently decided that they are the final arbiters about which laws are constitutional and which aren't, and the other two branches of government can simply go suck eggs.
This overreaching of authority on the part of Dear Leader has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage, no matter what side of that contentious issue one favors, but rather is all about a rogue executive branch arrogantly ignoring a statute which was enacted by Congress, signed into law by a president and which has not to date been struck down by a court.
In other words, Dear Leader has just circumvented our entire system of government by basically telling the nation's law enforcement department not to enforce a law. It doesn't matter one bit if that statute concerns a hot-button issue such as gay rights or such a mundane one as the maximum weight of a semitrailer on the interstate - it's the law of the land until it is repealed or struck down, and the Justice Department is duty bound to prosecute under its auspices and defend any challenges to it in court.
Until today, as one more bit of our Constitution is flagrantly discarded by this community organizer and his minions.
The craziest thing about this whole story is that Dear Leader still can't bring himself to take a position one way or the other on the very issue at hand:
"The White House says President Barack Obama is "grappling" with his personal views on gay marriage even as he's ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of a law that bans it."
The only thing about this entire matter he's "grappling" about is the fact that his liberal base overwhelmingly supports gay marriage while at the same time his black voter base overwhelmingly does not. He needs both constituencies to win reelection in 2012, so it will be very interesting to watch him squirm, vacillate and ultimately not take a position one way or the other. Such indecisiveness on his part truly illustrates the opportunistic, rudderless, incompetent leader he really is.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
How's that "knife control" working out for you, England?
Not very well at all, it seems.
BBC News reports that no less than 19 men were arrested the other day for engaging in a series of melees using "knives, hockey sticks and other weapons" in broad daylight right smack in the middle of Trafalgar Square, one of the must-see places in London for tourists.
Until now, that is.
"Officers are studying recordings from several CCTV and traffic cameras located around the square."
All of that ubiquitous Big Brother-style public surveillance going on in today's Britain didn't do diddly-squat to prevent these violent acts, but weakly only serves to give the cops a small chance to identify the thugs responsible for the mayhem. We're positive that's of pretty small comfort right about now to the victims.
This is the Nanny-state, we remind everyone, whose benevolent "leaders" concluded that a near-complete ban on the legal ownership of firearms didn't go nearly far enough in accomplishing their ultimate goal of completely disarming the law-abiding populace, so a few years ago they enacted a ban on carrying even small knives in public for self-defense and other lawful purposes, complete with an "amnesty period" for people to turn in contraband blades (these particular brutes must have unfortunately forgotten to hand over theirs).
That insane policy, of course, only ensures that the regular peasants there are utterly defenseless from the criminals such as these who pay no attention at all to such legal prohibitions, as the events of the other day prove without a shadow of a doubt.
Naturally, this being Great Britain and all, every one of the alleged miscreants has now been released on bail, despite at least some of them committing multiple stabbings during the fracas.
The bobbies undoubtedly need that jail space to lock up the poor blokes who unluckily get nailed for possessing a pocket knife in public.
BBC News reports that no less than 19 men were arrested the other day for engaging in a series of melees using "knives, hockey sticks and other weapons" in broad daylight right smack in the middle of Trafalgar Square, one of the must-see places in London for tourists.
Until now, that is.
"Officers are studying recordings from several CCTV and traffic cameras located around the square."
All of that ubiquitous Big Brother-style public surveillance going on in today's Britain didn't do diddly-squat to prevent these violent acts, but weakly only serves to give the cops a small chance to identify the thugs responsible for the mayhem. We're positive that's of pretty small comfort right about now to the victims.
This is the Nanny-state, we remind everyone, whose benevolent "leaders" concluded that a near-complete ban on the legal ownership of firearms didn't go nearly far enough in accomplishing their ultimate goal of completely disarming the law-abiding populace, so a few years ago they enacted a ban on carrying even small knives in public for self-defense and other lawful purposes, complete with an "amnesty period" for people to turn in contraband blades (these particular brutes must have unfortunately forgotten to hand over theirs).
That insane policy, of course, only ensures that the regular peasants there are utterly defenseless from the criminals such as these who pay no attention at all to such legal prohibitions, as the events of the other day prove without a shadow of a doubt.
Naturally, this being Great Britain and all, every one of the alleged miscreants has now been released on bail, despite at least some of them committing multiple stabbings during the fracas.
The bobbies undoubtedly need that jail space to lock up the poor blokes who unluckily get nailed for possessing a pocket knife in public.
Oops, she did it again
De-closeted rabid liberal ex-White House correspondent Helen Thomas, who has been sticking her wizened foot in her mouth with laughable regularity lately, provides another clear example of just who the biased people in society really are these days:
"And [President Obama] is not a liberal. I had hoped he was. I suppose I thought he was, because he was black, I thought he would automatically be -" (emphasis ours)
Gee, Helen, we thought that superior lefties like yourself were convinced (quite correctly, of course) that you weren't supposed to judge people by the color of their skin?
Except when such minorities inconveniently aren't socialist enough for you and the rest of your ilk, it seems.
Why does this woman still merit airtime?
(Vid via Weasel Zippers)
"And [President Obama] is not a liberal. I had hoped he was. I suppose I thought he was, because he was black, I thought he would automatically be -" (emphasis ours)
Gee, Helen, we thought that superior lefties like yourself were convinced (quite correctly, of course) that you weren't supposed to judge people by the color of their skin?
Except when such minorities inconveniently aren't socialist enough for you and the rest of your ilk, it seems.
Why does this woman still merit airtime?
(Vid via Weasel Zippers)
Monday, February 21, 2011
Let them eat ribs
First Hypocrite Lady Michelle Antoinette Obama continues to set the pace for the healthy-eating initiative she continually shoves down the throats (pun intended) of the peasantry by chowing down on braised ancho-chile short ribs while on the latest of her many vacations, this time in Vail, Colorado.
Total nutritional damage, according to Food.com - 1576 calories and 142 grams of fat, more than twice the recommended daily percentage of the artery-clogging substance in that one dish alone.
The lady does love her meat, we'll give her that.
We personally don't care what Mrs. Obama decides to cram into her face or how often she does it. She presumes to lecture the rest of us about our own swinish eating habits, however, so that makes her diet fair game for criticism.
Need another napkin, ma'am?
Total nutritional damage, according to Food.com - 1576 calories and 142 grams of fat, more than twice the recommended daily percentage of the artery-clogging substance in that one dish alone.
The lady does love her meat, we'll give her that.
We personally don't care what Mrs. Obama decides to cram into her face or how often she does it. She presumes to lecture the rest of us about our own swinish eating habits, however, so that makes her diet fair game for criticism.
Need another napkin, ma'am?
Dominoes
News outlets are reporting that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who has run Libya for over 40 years, has now fled that country, most likely to the comforting arms of wannabe-dictator Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (think Pugsley's starting to get a little nervous these days? Maybe Chavez's good pal Sean Penn can jet down there to reassure the pair of thugs that it's all going to work out OK).
In addition, key figures in Gaddafi's government have justifiably resigned to protest the brutal slaughter of their innocent countrymen who were simply peacefully demonstrating for their "leader" to get the heck out of office.
Freedom definitely appears to be catching lately in the Middle East. Place your bets for the next country to throw off the yoke of oppression - will it be Bahrain, Yemen or Algeria?
In addition, key figures in Gaddafi's government have justifiably resigned to protest the brutal slaughter of their innocent countrymen who were simply peacefully demonstrating for their "leader" to get the heck out of office.
Freedom definitely appears to be catching lately in the Middle East. Place your bets for the next country to throw off the yoke of oppression - will it be Bahrain, Yemen or Algeria?
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The debate was hoppin' on a Sunday evening...
... and that's a good thing.
Arizona Republic columnist E.J. Montini started off the discussion on his Facebook page:
"And just who would be allowed to determine the number of rounds (N) in a magazine that would be "appropriate"? Keep in mind that 1. Whatever N is ultimately decided to be, the person who came up with that number is basically saying that (N+1) people are not worth a private citizen being able to defend, and 2. Anti-gun politicians and activists won't be satisfied with whatever N happens to be and will constantly agitate for (N-1) rounds to be the new limit until N is as low as possible, with zero being the ultimate goal.
You see, the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center have finally realized that firearms are never going to be banned in America, thanks to several key Supreme Court decisions. Their new strategy, then, is to restrict ammunition types, amounts and magazine capacities as much as possible (for example, trying to back-door ban key components of ammo by misusing the EPA, outlawing mail-order sales in California and the aforementioned magazine capacity limits) , since there is no such Constitutional prohibition on such acts. That's how harm would be done to the Second Amendment, Mr. Montini - a firearm without ammunition is basically a metal and wood club.
Our own personal view? Law-abiding citizens should be entitled to the same magazine capacities as the military and law enforcement, since the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to successfully fight back against a tyrannical and out-of-control government, not preserve hunting or target-shooting activities."
The debate jumped off from there.
A polite and well-informed discussion by passionate people is always welcome around here.
Arizona Republic columnist E.J. Montini started off the discussion on his Facebook page:
"And just who would be allowed to determine the number of rounds (N) in a magazine that would be "appropriate"? Keep in mind that 1. Whatever N is ultimately decided to be, the person who came up with that number is basically saying that (N+1) people are not worth a private citizen being able to defend, and 2. Anti-gun politicians and activists won't be satisfied with whatever N happens to be and will constantly agitate for (N-1) rounds to be the new limit until N is as low as possible, with zero being the ultimate goal.
You see, the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center have finally realized that firearms are never going to be banned in America, thanks to several key Supreme Court decisions. Their new strategy, then, is to restrict ammunition types, amounts and magazine capacities as much as possible (for example, trying to back-door ban key components of ammo by misusing the EPA, outlawing mail-order sales in California and the aforementioned magazine capacity limits) , since there is no such Constitutional prohibition on such acts. That's how harm would be done to the Second Amendment, Mr. Montini - a firearm without ammunition is basically a metal and wood club.
Our own personal view? Law-abiding citizens should be entitled to the same magazine capacities as the military and law enforcement, since the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to successfully fight back against a tyrannical and out-of-control government, not preserve hunting or target-shooting activities."
The debate jumped off from there.
A polite and well-informed discussion by passionate people is always welcome around here.
We don't need no stinkin' laws
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, frustrated at their inability to execute wiretaps on communications not covered by current laws ("web-based e-mail, social-networking and peer-to-peer services"), is apparently going to "lean" on such online companies, Mob-like, to build in a few special little back doors for the Feds to use in whatever extra-legal fashion they wish:
"But [FBI General Counsel Valerie] Caproni told lawmakers she was not asking for expanded CALEA [Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act] powers. And she stopped short of calling for rules requiring Web-based communication providers to build in so-called back doors allowing law enforcement access to their software, although she said she's optimistic the US government can find incentives for companies to 'have intercept solutions engineered into their systems.'" (emphasis ours)
It will be interesting to learn what sort of "incentives" will be offered to companies who are asked to provide the type of access that Ms. Caproni doesn't want to bother codifying into law. Maybe something along the lines of "Play ball with us and we won't unlawfully seize your Internet domain and then go on to defame your company by falsely accusing you of harboring child porn", perhaps?
The e-list member who turned us on to this article has a well-placed friend who summed up the situation quite nicely:
"Laws have boundaries and oversight. Incentives don't."
True, which is most likely why Ms. Caproni doesn't appear to be in a rush to request a legislative-based solution to the department's expressed dilemma.
This issue might be something to keep in mind when evaluating your future online software solutions.
"But [FBI General Counsel Valerie] Caproni told lawmakers she was not asking for expanded CALEA [Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act] powers. And she stopped short of calling for rules requiring Web-based communication providers to build in so-called back doors allowing law enforcement access to their software, although she said she's optimistic the US government can find incentives for companies to 'have intercept solutions engineered into their systems.'" (emphasis ours)
It will be interesting to learn what sort of "incentives" will be offered to companies who are asked to provide the type of access that Ms. Caproni doesn't want to bother codifying into law. Maybe something along the lines of "Play ball with us and we won't unlawfully seize your Internet domain and then go on to defame your company by falsely accusing you of harboring child porn", perhaps?
The e-list member who turned us on to this article has a well-placed friend who summed up the situation quite nicely:
"Laws have boundaries and oversight. Incentives don't."
True, which is most likely why Ms. Caproni doesn't appear to be in a rush to request a legislative-based solution to the department's expressed dilemma.
This issue might be something to keep in mind when evaluating your future online software solutions.
Friday, February 18, 2011
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
... are the uniformed Secret Service officers who detained and harassed a person who happened to be taking pictures in front of the White House, just like hundreds of thousands of tourists do every year.
The supposed actions that made him so "suspicious"? Including in his shots a few of the uniformed officers standing by marked cruisers who were hanging out in the public plaza in front of the White House fence while gossiping away with one another:
We suppose they were a little embarrassed at being caught lounging around and had to somehow justify their presence with a little show of "authoritah".
Q: "How long have you been here, sir?"
A. "I don't know, 5 minutes?... is there like a time length that you give to people?... I know that woman all the way down there has been there for like, 40 years, so, no one's kicking her out of here."
Now that's an appropriate answer to some truly inane questions.
The photographer did pretty well for himself despite unfortunately answering quite a few of the bullies' questions after he clearly stated he wouldn't (cops are kind of good at ignoring any assertion of one's rights). As the harassee himself says in the video's comments,
" i also thought maybe if i was answering a few questions here and there and they saw my record was good that they'd go ahead and kick me loose, not hold me for an additional 10 minutes!"
He obviously thought wrong.
Once again we see that voluntarily giving up one's rights when one hasn't done anything wrong in the first place doesn't make a whit of difference to the sort of police officers who like to make up their own laws and rules as they go along.
If you ever find yourself being rousted in a similar manner for innocently taking pictures of public people and places, remember the following sentences (standard disclaimer: we are not lawyers, nor do we wish to be ones, but we have consulted with quite a few of them and here's what they told us to say):
Am I being detained or am I free to go about my business?
Please articulate your reasonable suspicion that I am committing a crime.
I do not consent to a search of either myself or my belongings.
I will not answer any questions and I wish to speak to my attorney.
Just so you know, please realize that you're probably going to be taking a ride downtown if the cops do in fact have a valid reason to arrest you. If they don't and are simply hell-bent on unlawfully making life rough for you for insisting on using your Constitutional freedoms then there's no sense in arguing with them (and anything you say out of anger or frustration at the situation might actually count against you in any future civil lawsuit you may bring against them), so it's best to just keep your mouth shut except for the above statements.
(As always, a big h/t to Carlos Miller for staying right on top of stories such as these)
The supposed actions that made him so "suspicious"? Including in his shots a few of the uniformed officers standing by marked cruisers who were hanging out in the public plaza in front of the White House fence while gossiping away with one another:
We suppose they were a little embarrassed at being caught lounging around and had to somehow justify their presence with a little show of "authoritah".
Q: "How long have you been here, sir?"
A. "I don't know, 5 minutes?... is there like a time length that you give to people?... I know that woman all the way down there has been there for like, 40 years, so, no one's kicking her out of here."
Now that's an appropriate answer to some truly inane questions.
The photographer did pretty well for himself despite unfortunately answering quite a few of the bullies' questions after he clearly stated he wouldn't (cops are kind of good at ignoring any assertion of one's rights). As the harassee himself says in the video's comments,
" i also thought maybe if i was answering a few questions here and there and they saw my record was good that they'd go ahead and kick me loose, not hold me for an additional 10 minutes!"
He obviously thought wrong.
Once again we see that voluntarily giving up one's rights when one hasn't done anything wrong in the first place doesn't make a whit of difference to the sort of police officers who like to make up their own laws and rules as they go along.
If you ever find yourself being rousted in a similar manner for innocently taking pictures of public people and places, remember the following sentences (standard disclaimer: we are not lawyers, nor do we wish to be ones, but we have consulted with quite a few of them and here's what they told us to say):
Am I being detained or am I free to go about my business?
Please articulate your reasonable suspicion that I am committing a crime.
I do not consent to a search of either myself or my belongings.
I will not answer any questions and I wish to speak to my attorney.
Just so you know, please realize that you're probably going to be taking a ride downtown if the cops do in fact have a valid reason to arrest you. If they don't and are simply hell-bent on unlawfully making life rough for you for insisting on using your Constitutional freedoms then there's no sense in arguing with them (and anything you say out of anger or frustration at the situation might actually count against you in any future civil lawsuit you may bring against them), so it's best to just keep your mouth shut except for the above statements.
(As always, a big h/t to Carlos Miller for staying right on top of stories such as these)
Good luck with that
"The Justice Department on Thursday asked the Florida judge who struck down the health care overhaul to declare that the law must still be obeyed."
The feds are being forced to take this desperate and humiliating action in response to a recent announcement by Alaska Governor Sean Parnell that he will refuse to implement any of the provisions of Dear Leader's Ponzi scheme, as that entire law was recently thrown out as unconstitutional by Federal Judge Roger Vinson (Alaska is one of the 26 states which sued to overturn the law on those specific grounds. Other governors are expected to quickly follow Parnell's lead).
"In his ruling, Vinson implied that the government did not have the authority to enforce an unconstitutional law."
Hence the obvious lack of need for him to issue a separate injunction blocking its enactment. Duh. Even legal neophytes such as ourselves can comprehend that simple fact.
'"We believe it is important to put to rest any doubts about the ability of states and other parties to continue to implement these critical programs and consumer protections provided under this statute,' Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said."
We hope the press checks back with Ms. Schmaler for additional comment once Judge Vinson laughs Eric Holder's incompetent lackeys out of his courtroom.
The feds are being forced to take this desperate and humiliating action in response to a recent announcement by Alaska Governor Sean Parnell that he will refuse to implement any of the provisions of Dear Leader's Ponzi scheme, as that entire law was recently thrown out as unconstitutional by Federal Judge Roger Vinson (Alaska is one of the 26 states which sued to overturn the law on those specific grounds. Other governors are expected to quickly follow Parnell's lead).
"In his ruling, Vinson implied that the government did not have the authority to enforce an unconstitutional law."
Hence the obvious lack of need for him to issue a separate injunction blocking its enactment. Duh. Even legal neophytes such as ourselves can comprehend that simple fact.
'"We believe it is important to put to rest any doubts about the ability of states and other parties to continue to implement these critical programs and consumer protections provided under this statute,' Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said."
We hope the press checks back with Ms. Schmaler for additional comment once Judge Vinson laughs Eric Holder's incompetent lackeys out of his courtroom.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
A badge is a now a license to kill in Washington State
In a stunning followup to a story we recently commented on, King County, Washington Prosecutor Dan Satterberg has announced that there's just not a single crime he can think of with which to charge Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk, despite Birk's own department concluding that the cop's execution (after reviewing the available evidence we are convinced that is the correct description) of local resident John T. Williams for walking down the street while innocently whittling a piece of wood with a legal-length knife was "not justified".
Satterberg cites a 25-year-old state law that he says gives cops a huge amount of discretion (to say the least):
"The King County Prosecutor specifically cites RCW 9A.16.040, which gives police officers more leeway in incidents of deadly force. Section 3, of the law, says 'A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.'"
So a Washington cop can pretty much gun down anyone they wish as long as the officer doesn't pull the trigger out of hate and afterwards somehow comes up with the flimsiest of excuses? And how can any rational person, much less a trained law-enforcement officer such as Birk, believe that a "justifiable" response to seeing a person ambling down the sidewalk while engaged in a little woodcarving and who doesn't immediately respond within 5 seconds to a barked command to drop the knife (Williams was deaf in one ear and happened to be listening to a personal music player at the time of the incident) is to shoot them multiple times in the side (which pretty much proves that Williams couldn't possibly have been threatening the officer, as he claimed)?
No sale, Mr. Satterberg. There isn't a shred of "good faith belief" to be had anywhere here. This is a clear case of negligent homicide and should be prosecuted as such.
"State Senator Adam Kline, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, personally had problems with Birk’s actions, but not the law."
Unbelievable. What a way to whitewash an obvious criminal overreaction by someone who should have clearly known better.
"'The law gives the person some protection for errors in judgment as long as they are made without malice,' said Kline.
He believes the law should remain unchanged.
'We don’t want that police officer to be so intimidated that every time he draws his weapon or her weapon even in self defense, or defense of civilians, that there is going to be a lawsuit or he or she is going to be fired,' said Kline."
Well, you presumably don't want your cops killing law-abiding citizens for engaging in innocent and LEGAL behavior either, so it appears you've got quite the conundrum on your hands, Mr. Kline. How do you propose to fix it, sir?
Regardless of any eventual criminal outcome of the incident, "Officer" Birk has now bowed to overwhelming pressure from just about every resident and local government official there not named Satterberg or Kline and resigned in disgrace from the Seattle Police Department effective yesterday. Judging by the recent employment histories of other former cops who were caught committing serious crimes and who pretty much got away with no punishment due to similar technicalities based on their employment status, Birk's law-enforcement career is seemingly over for good, as any other department's hiring of him would no doubt generate the kind of massive outcry that is going on right this minute in downtown Seattle.
Good riddance. Now the good people of Washington need to retire oafs like Satterberg and Kline, men who claim to be "troubled" by Birk's actions but who go right ahead and twist the laws around enough to find a convenient excuse to let a guilty man off the legal hook solely because of what he does for a living.
Satterberg cites a 25-year-old state law that he says gives cops a huge amount of discretion (to say the least):
"The King County Prosecutor specifically cites RCW 9A.16.040, which gives police officers more leeway in incidents of deadly force. Section 3, of the law, says 'A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.'"
So a Washington cop can pretty much gun down anyone they wish as long as the officer doesn't pull the trigger out of hate and afterwards somehow comes up with the flimsiest of excuses? And how can any rational person, much less a trained law-enforcement officer such as Birk, believe that a "justifiable" response to seeing a person ambling down the sidewalk while engaged in a little woodcarving and who doesn't immediately respond within 5 seconds to a barked command to drop the knife (Williams was deaf in one ear and happened to be listening to a personal music player at the time of the incident) is to shoot them multiple times in the side (which pretty much proves that Williams couldn't possibly have been threatening the officer, as he claimed)?
No sale, Mr. Satterberg. There isn't a shred of "good faith belief" to be had anywhere here. This is a clear case of negligent homicide and should be prosecuted as such.
"State Senator Adam Kline, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, personally had problems with Birk’s actions, but not the law."
Unbelievable. What a way to whitewash an obvious criminal overreaction by someone who should have clearly known better.
"'The law gives the person some protection for errors in judgment as long as they are made without malice,' said Kline.
He believes the law should remain unchanged.
'We don’t want that police officer to be so intimidated that every time he draws his weapon or her weapon even in self defense, or defense of civilians, that there is going to be a lawsuit or he or she is going to be fired,' said Kline."
Well, you presumably don't want your cops killing law-abiding citizens for engaging in innocent and LEGAL behavior either, so it appears you've got quite the conundrum on your hands, Mr. Kline. How do you propose to fix it, sir?
Regardless of any eventual criminal outcome of the incident, "Officer" Birk has now bowed to overwhelming pressure from just about every resident and local government official there not named Satterberg or Kline and resigned in disgrace from the Seattle Police Department effective yesterday. Judging by the recent employment histories of other former cops who were caught committing serious crimes and who pretty much got away with no punishment due to similar technicalities based on their employment status, Birk's law-enforcement career is seemingly over for good, as any other department's hiring of him would no doubt generate the kind of massive outcry that is going on right this minute in downtown Seattle.
Good riddance. Now the good people of Washington need to retire oafs like Satterberg and Kline, men who claim to be "troubled" by Birk's actions but who go right ahead and twist the laws around enough to find a convenient excuse to let a guilty man off the legal hook solely because of what he does for a living.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Pointing out the obvious
The U.S. Senate voted 98-0 yesterday to criminalize the impossible.
The proposed new law, an amendment to an FAA bill introduced by Democratic senators Nelson and Schumer, would make it a felony to save, copy, collect or distribute in any form the images generated by the TSA-operated full-body scanners at airports.
Curiously, these are the very machines the American public was specifically and repeatedly told lack any of those capabilities in the first place:
"The TSA says it does not store the images from the body scanners and there is no way they could ever be copied."
So why the need to add one more new crime to the bloated U.S. Criminal Code (one that provides for penalties of up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine for a violation, no less), unless the government is blatantly lying to us about what those machines can or can't do?
We repeat the assertion we recently made about this provision - if such a scan showed a weapon or a suspected explosive device, that information would be evidence of a crime and would undoubtedly be of vital importance in the subsequent investigation and criminal prosecution of the suspect - evidence DHS would in no way allow to be lost to eternity because of the lack of a "save" command.
The proposed new law, an amendment to an FAA bill introduced by Democratic senators Nelson and Schumer, would make it a felony to save, copy, collect or distribute in any form the images generated by the TSA-operated full-body scanners at airports.
Curiously, these are the very machines the American public was specifically and repeatedly told lack any of those capabilities in the first place:
"The TSA says it does not store the images from the body scanners and there is no way they could ever be copied."
So why the need to add one more new crime to the bloated U.S. Criminal Code (one that provides for penalties of up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine for a violation, no less), unless the government is blatantly lying to us about what those machines can or can't do?
We repeat the assertion we recently made about this provision - if such a scan showed a weapon or a suspected explosive device, that information would be evidence of a crime and would undoubtedly be of vital importance in the subsequent investigation and criminal prosecution of the suspect - evidence DHS would in no way allow to be lost to eternity because of the lack of a "save" command.
It's all Monopoly money at this point
"President Obama's budget released on Monday proposes to spend $3.73 trillion for 2012. He can't say Bush made him do that. That proposed spending is an undeniable fact that reveals who he is, which he successfully hid from 53% of voters in 2008.
Campaigning in 2008 he promised voters that his plan involved a "net spending cut." That net spending cut translated into $836 billion in increased spending this year from 2008, according to President Obama's own budget documents. That is a federal spending increase of nearly 30% since 2008. Either President Obama does not know what "net spending cut" means in English, or he bamboozled a lot of people in 2008." (all emphases ours)
Dear Leader made a vow he had no intention of keeping? Bestill our hearts!
This news is so blatantly bad even reliable Obama lickspittle Andrew Sullivan has jumped the S.S. Hope and Change:
"To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools."
Future historians will no doubt pinpoint the tipping point for the inevitable economic collapse of the United States as occurring during the current administration, and properly lay the blame at the feet of the man who in his (hopefully) one term will have increased our national debt more than all of his 43 predecessors combined, despite their having to deal with such minor inconveniences as World Wars, Great Depressions, terrorist attacks and other global crises.
Thanks, Mr. President!
Campaigning in 2008 he promised voters that his plan involved a "net spending cut." That net spending cut translated into $836 billion in increased spending this year from 2008, according to President Obama's own budget documents. That is a federal spending increase of nearly 30% since 2008. Either President Obama does not know what "net spending cut" means in English, or he bamboozled a lot of people in 2008." (all emphases ours)
Dear Leader made a vow he had no intention of keeping? Bestill our hearts!
This news is so blatantly bad even reliable Obama lickspittle Andrew Sullivan has jumped the S.S. Hope and Change:
"To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools."
Future historians will no doubt pinpoint the tipping point for the inevitable economic collapse of the United States as occurring during the current administration, and properly lay the blame at the feet of the man who in his (hopefully) one term will have increased our national debt more than all of his 43 predecessors combined, despite their having to deal with such minor inconveniences as World Wars, Great Depressions, terrorist attacks and other global crises.
Thanks, Mr. President!
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
This one hits very close to home
Our yoga instructor's very close female friend of 20+ years was murdered last Thursday night.
The killer is allegedly her ex-husband, from whom she had been divorced for approximately eight years (the article says ex-boyfriend, but that information appears to be incorrect). We have been told that the scumbag apparently had been stalking her off and on, but that this attack had come out of nowhere as a complete surprise. This coward seems to have taken advantage of the fact that her current boyfriend was out of town to show up and end her life.
The truly sad part of the story is that we were informed that the victim indeed possessed the means to protect herself at her home in the form of a firearm, but apparently after such a long period with no immediate threats she had begun to let her guard down and it wasn't immediately available.
The suspect was arrested last night in Las Vegas, where local police think he was attempting to slay yet another ex.
(What a charming individual. The death penalty is absolutely tailor-made for wastes of DNA such as him.)
Anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center are quite mistaken (and they know it) with the propaganda they expect people to swallow. Contrary to what these organizations state, these kinds of violent crimes (against both men and women) can and do happen in the blink of an eye to innocent people without any sort of warning at all, and odds are there won't be any law-enforcement officers around to protect you when they do. Please, please take the steps available to you in the vast majority of states to help prevent this sort of utter tragedy from someday happening to you:
Obtain a firearm.
Get the proper training and acquire the mindset and will to use it to protect yourself and your loved ones should the need arise.
Carry it everywhere you legally can.
We've seen firsthand the effects such senseless acts can have on an innocent victims' friends, and we truly want to help prevent such a horrific crime from happening to any other person.
Our hearts and sincere condolences go out to the family and friends of Anne Marie Simenson.
The killer is allegedly her ex-husband, from whom she had been divorced for approximately eight years (the article says ex-boyfriend, but that information appears to be incorrect). We have been told that the scumbag apparently had been stalking her off and on, but that this attack had come out of nowhere as a complete surprise. This coward seems to have taken advantage of the fact that her current boyfriend was out of town to show up and end her life.
The truly sad part of the story is that we were informed that the victim indeed possessed the means to protect herself at her home in the form of a firearm, but apparently after such a long period with no immediate threats she had begun to let her guard down and it wasn't immediately available.
The suspect was arrested last night in Las Vegas, where local police think he was attempting to slay yet another ex.
(What a charming individual. The death penalty is absolutely tailor-made for wastes of DNA such as him.)
Anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center are quite mistaken (and they know it) with the propaganda they expect people to swallow. Contrary to what these organizations state, these kinds of violent crimes (against both men and women) can and do happen in the blink of an eye to innocent people without any sort of warning at all, and odds are there won't be any law-enforcement officers around to protect you when they do. Please, please take the steps available to you in the vast majority of states to help prevent this sort of utter tragedy from someday happening to you:
Obtain a firearm.
Get the proper training and acquire the mindset and will to use it to protect yourself and your loved ones should the need arise.
Carry it everywhere you legally can.
We've seen firsthand the effects such senseless acts can have on an innocent victims' friends, and we truly want to help prevent such a horrific crime from happening to any other person.
Our hearts and sincere condolences go out to the family and friends of Anne Marie Simenson.
Monday, February 14, 2011
More dispatches from the madhouse across the pond
A couple of quickies from the criminal-coddling Nanny-state paradise that used to be "Great" Britain:
1. Police in Kent and Surrey, England, have strongly advised homeowners in that region to remove the wire mesh that most have placed over their shed windows in response to a recent increase in garden thefts there.
The cops have informed the incredulous residents that such measures are "dangerous" to thieves and that they could be successfully sued if the miscreants somehow injure themselves whilst climbing through such protected openings.
"Last month Samantha Cullum, a mother-of-three, of Brasted, near Sevenoaks in Kent, had her whole shed stolen when thieves lifted it on to a lorry." (emphasis ours)
Boy, a little mesh really made a huge difference there, didn't it?
"Dave Bishop, of Tatsfield, said: 'The law is so stupid, and you never know what decision judges are going to make.'"
The solution's quite obvious, Mr. Bishop - simply vote out the idiot lawmakers who insist on continually favoring the "rights" of criminals at your expense.
2. 17-year-old star athlete and fashion model Samantha Sadler of Halton, England was severely injured last June when a teenage "yob" for no reason at all threw a brick through the rear window of the car in which she was riding.
Sadler suffered a fractured skull, broken eye socket and broken nose, and still suffers to this day from double vision. Her dual careers in athletics and modeling are in serious danger of being ended forever due to her lingering injuries.
The feral youth in question, "who cannot be named for legal reasons" (naturally)? He was allowed to plead guilty to assault and was fined a mere 200 pounds ($321) and placed on probation for a year.
"A spokesman for the Families Against Crime campaign group said: ‘This is a shocking sentence. So often these cases end up in a plea bargain to save time and money at the expense of a proper punishment and justice for the victim. The system needs to be changed root and branch and this is a prime example why.'"
Just as in the first case, the solution is exceedingly simple - the law-abiding subjects over there need to vote out the politicians and judges who enable such outrageous miscarriages of justice which serve to embolden the criminal element, because the lawbreakers there know they won't face any serious consequences for their harmful actions.
We'll see if the law-abiding residents of that asylum ever wake up and rescue their nation from this kind of institutionalized madness.
1. Police in Kent and Surrey, England, have strongly advised homeowners in that region to remove the wire mesh that most have placed over their shed windows in response to a recent increase in garden thefts there.
The cops have informed the incredulous residents that such measures are "dangerous" to thieves and that they could be successfully sued if the miscreants somehow injure themselves whilst climbing through such protected openings.
"Last month Samantha Cullum, a mother-of-three, of Brasted, near Sevenoaks in Kent, had her whole shed stolen when thieves lifted it on to a lorry." (emphasis ours)
Boy, a little mesh really made a huge difference there, didn't it?
"Dave Bishop, of Tatsfield, said: 'The law is so stupid, and you never know what decision judges are going to make.'"
The solution's quite obvious, Mr. Bishop - simply vote out the idiot lawmakers who insist on continually favoring the "rights" of criminals at your expense.
2. 17-year-old star athlete and fashion model Samantha Sadler of Halton, England was severely injured last June when a teenage "yob" for no reason at all threw a brick through the rear window of the car in which she was riding.
Sadler suffered a fractured skull, broken eye socket and broken nose, and still suffers to this day from double vision. Her dual careers in athletics and modeling are in serious danger of being ended forever due to her lingering injuries.
The feral youth in question, "who cannot be named for legal reasons" (naturally)? He was allowed to plead guilty to assault and was fined a mere 200 pounds ($321) and placed on probation for a year.
"A spokesman for the Families Against Crime campaign group said: ‘This is a shocking sentence. So often these cases end up in a plea bargain to save time and money at the expense of a proper punishment and justice for the victim. The system needs to be changed root and branch and this is a prime example why.'"
Just as in the first case, the solution is exceedingly simple - the law-abiding subjects over there need to vote out the politicians and judges who enable such outrageous miscarriages of justice which serve to embolden the criminal element, because the lawbreakers there know they won't face any serious consequences for their harmful actions.
We'll see if the law-abiding residents of that asylum ever wake up and rescue their nation from this kind of institutionalized madness.
How nice of them
The Atlanta, Georgia Police Department, as part of a legal settlement with a local citizen advocacy group, has announced that its officers will no longer harass and assault "interfere with" people who are filming them going about their duties in public:
"Last April, [Copwatch member Marlon] Kautz said, he pulled out his camera phone and began recording Atlanta police who were arresting a suspect in Little Five Points. Two officers approached him and said he had no right to be filming them, Kautz said. When Kautz refused to stop, one officer wrenched Kautz's arm behind his back and yanked the camera out of his hands, he said."
...
"Kautz said that when he asked to get his phone back, another officer said he'd return it only after Kautz gave him the password to the phone so he could delete the footage. When Kautz refused, police confiscated the phone, he said. When police returned it, Kautz said, the video images had been deleted, altered or damaged."
Oh, and the agency also has to pony up $40,000 in damages (taxpayer funded, of course) because its representatives illegally suppressed Kautz's perfectly lawful behavior.
Two officers and a sergeant received oral admonishments for their behavior in this incident, and the Atlanta Citizen Review Board has found that Officer Anthony Kirkman (the cop who assaulted Kautz and ripped the phone out of his hand) to be guilty of excessive force and has recommended that he be suspended for four days without pay.
As far as we're concerned those three clueless "public" workers should also have to shell out the 40 large in order to recompense the Atlanta taxpayers who had to dig deep in order to pay for their employees' obnoxious actions.
"Last April, [Copwatch member Marlon] Kautz said, he pulled out his camera phone and began recording Atlanta police who were arresting a suspect in Little Five Points. Two officers approached him and said he had no right to be filming them, Kautz said. When Kautz refused to stop, one officer wrenched Kautz's arm behind his back and yanked the camera out of his hands, he said."
...
"Kautz said that when he asked to get his phone back, another officer said he'd return it only after Kautz gave him the password to the phone so he could delete the footage. When Kautz refused, police confiscated the phone, he said. When police returned it, Kautz said, the video images had been deleted, altered or damaged."
Oh, and the agency also has to pony up $40,000 in damages (taxpayer funded, of course) because its representatives illegally suppressed Kautz's perfectly lawful behavior.
Two officers and a sergeant received oral admonishments for their behavior in this incident, and the Atlanta Citizen Review Board has found that Officer Anthony Kirkman (the cop who assaulted Kautz and ripped the phone out of his hand) to be guilty of excessive force and has recommended that he be suspended for four days without pay.
As far as we're concerned those three clueless "public" workers should also have to shell out the 40 large in order to recompense the Atlanta taxpayers who had to dig deep in order to pay for their employees' obnoxious actions.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Where are the howls of outrage from the usual suspects?
But remember, it's conservatives who are consistently labeled by the mainstream media (as well as various and sundry advocacy groups) as insensitive and hateful cretins when they make statements that are perceived by these self-appointed censors as being even remotely un-PC.
We'll see if those organizations demonstrate the same mercilessness towards the buffoonish Mr. Gage, now that he's been caught on tape using a term considered by the lefties to be a slur against the mentally challenged to describe in a derogatory fashion those who simply desire financial restraint from their government.
(Boortz link)
Off topic but interesting, at least to me
"Playboy Mansion visitors come down with mystery illness"
An as-yet-undiscovered venereal disease, we'd venture to guess.
We're just kidding - the cause of the partygoers' distress is speculated to be Pontiac fever, a (fortunately) less-severe form of Legionnaire's Disease.
Better divert a little of your many Playmates' generous allowances into getting those AC ducts and hot tubs cleaned out, Hef.
An as-yet-undiscovered venereal disease, we'd venture to guess.
We're just kidding - the cause of the partygoers' distress is speculated to be Pontiac fever, a (fortunately) less-severe form of Legionnaire's Disease.
Better divert a little of your many Playmates' generous allowances into getting those AC ducts and hot tubs cleaned out, Hef.
Nobody asked whether we were happy about it
"Why Obama's Silence on Gun Control Pleases No One"
Actually, his acute muteness on the issue pleases us to no end.
Dear Leader is pretty much a toe-the-liberal-line gun-grabber, at least based on his legislative record (scant though it is) and previous public statements on the issue. He's just too chicken to actually come out and say so now that he's President, since it might cost him some votes from the "bitter clingers", who ironically haven't been fooled one bit.
President Obama's already in so much re-election trouble he might as well simply lay all of his ideological cards on the table. At least by doing that he won't lose what remains of the core supporters who are rapidly abandoning him over his many other broken promises to them on such topics as gay rights, closing Guantanamo, stopping the practice of rendition, and so on.
Actually, his acute muteness on the issue pleases us to no end.
Dear Leader is pretty much a toe-the-liberal-line gun-grabber, at least based on his legislative record (scant though it is) and previous public statements on the issue. He's just too chicken to actually come out and say so now that he's President, since it might cost him some votes from the "bitter clingers", who ironically haven't been fooled one bit.
President Obama's already in so much re-election trouble he might as well simply lay all of his ideological cards on the table. At least by doing that he won't lose what remains of the core supporters who are rapidly abandoning him over his many other broken promises to them on such topics as gay rights, closing Guantanamo, stopping the practice of rendition, and so on.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Looks like a good cop is getting unfairly smeared
Our close friend and fellow activist Joel Rosenberg tips us to the fact that Rogers, Minnesota Police Chief Jeff Luther, as well as a sergeant in that department, have been placed on leave "pending an investigation whose nature was not made public."
Chief Luther is a career law-enforcement officer and the respected former head of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's firearm carry permit program. He has always treated the gun-rights community with the utmost professionalism, civility and fairness, and many people who are aware of his outstanding reputation are simply in disbelief that he could be guilty of any sort of official wrongdoing. Former Rogers City Councilmember Jamie Davis concurs:
"[Davis] commended Luther for turning what had been a 'good-old boy network' within the police department into a more professional body.
'Jeff set the tone from the top,' Davis said. 'He brought a new work ethic. He was on the streets regularly.'"
Does that behavior seem indicative of a corrupt law-enforcement officer?
Mr. Davis unfortunately also holds the opinion that Luther's apparently long-overdue cleanup of that incestuous agency is the primary factor spurring this suspension, which smells awfully like back-room buddy-buddy politics at its worst:
"Early Friday night, after the moves involving the two were made public, Davis said he feared the probe could be part of an effort to elevate the newly named acting chief -- Rogers police Capt. Mike Miller -- into the chief's job permanently.
Davis noted that Miller is the godfather of the mayor's 2-year-old daughter and a friend of two other council members. Not to disrespect Miller, he said, 'but it's fishy. There's no other way to put it.'"
We fervently hope that once the Sherburne County Sheriff's Office clears Chief Luther of these sham charges he washes his hands of Rogers and its jerk administrators for good and quickly moves on to lead the next department that is fortunate enough to land him.
UPDATE: Corrected Luther's role at the BCA.
Chief Luther is a career law-enforcement officer and the respected former head of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's firearm carry permit program. He has always treated the gun-rights community with the utmost professionalism, civility and fairness, and many people who are aware of his outstanding reputation are simply in disbelief that he could be guilty of any sort of official wrongdoing. Former Rogers City Councilmember Jamie Davis concurs:
"[Davis] commended Luther for turning what had been a 'good-old boy network' within the police department into a more professional body.
'Jeff set the tone from the top,' Davis said. 'He brought a new work ethic. He was on the streets regularly.'"
Does that behavior seem indicative of a corrupt law-enforcement officer?
Mr. Davis unfortunately also holds the opinion that Luther's apparently long-overdue cleanup of that incestuous agency is the primary factor spurring this suspension, which smells awfully like back-room buddy-buddy politics at its worst:
"Early Friday night, after the moves involving the two were made public, Davis said he feared the probe could be part of an effort to elevate the newly named acting chief -- Rogers police Capt. Mike Miller -- into the chief's job permanently.
Davis noted that Miller is the godfather of the mayor's 2-year-old daughter and a friend of two other council members. Not to disrespect Miller, he said, 'but it's fishy. There's no other way to put it.'"
We fervently hope that once the Sherburne County Sheriff's Office clears Chief Luther of these sham charges he washes his hands of Rogers and its jerk administrators for good and quickly moves on to lead the next department that is fortunate enough to land him.
UPDATE: Corrected Luther's role at the BCA.
We don't care what you think
Someone named Oprah Winfrey has taken some time out from lecturing middle-aged soccer moms about the latest book they need to read or what healthy foods they should be eating (heh) to chastise the rest of us to "show [President Obama] some level of respect" because "I feel that everybody has a learning curve".
She apparently thinks the Presidency should be one of those "earn while you learn" kind of apprentice positions that are advertised in the local weekly paper.
We always knew the freshman junior senator from Illinois didn't have the most basic knowledge and experience to occupy the Oval Office, and now we know that at least one of his most fervent supporters didn't think so as well. This makes us wonder why she backed him in the first place, besides the obvious facts that they both are from Chicago and that their skin tones are quite similar.
It will be very interesting to observe if Ms. Winfrey will feel the same way about allowing people to grow into the highest office in America should someone such as, say, Sarah Palin run and win in 2012. Yeah, right.
Sorry, oh Guru to the Perimenopausal. Respect is earned by exhibiting good character and a high level of competence over a significant period of time, and it cannot simply be granted by ordering people to do so the same way you direct your audience to buy a certain product or service.
Now go back to mindlessly gushing about "Your Favorite Things" and the latest shopping trip with your BFF.
She apparently thinks the Presidency should be one of those "earn while you learn" kind of apprentice positions that are advertised in the local weekly paper.
We always knew the freshman junior senator from Illinois didn't have the most basic knowledge and experience to occupy the Oval Office, and now we know that at least one of his most fervent supporters didn't think so as well. This makes us wonder why she backed him in the first place, besides the obvious facts that they both are from Chicago and that their skin tones are quite similar.
It will be very interesting to observe if Ms. Winfrey will feel the same way about allowing people to grow into the highest office in America should someone such as, say, Sarah Palin run and win in 2012. Yeah, right.
Sorry, oh Guru to the Perimenopausal. Respect is earned by exhibiting good character and a high level of competence over a significant period of time, and it cannot simply be granted by ordering people to do so the same way you direct your audience to buy a certain product or service.
Now go back to mindlessly gushing about "Your Favorite Things" and the latest shopping trip with your BFF.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Selective transparency
The Obama Justice Department, under the stellar leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder, has apparently been playing political games with the Freedom of Information Act, at least according to conservative media outlet Pajamas Media, which recently asked a federal court to put a halt to the blatant favoritism.
The lawsuit alleges that "Justice" has been routinely fulfilling information requests to liberal media organizations in as little as one day while at the same time delaying for months or even outright ignoring similar requests from conservative outlets. PM provides many convincing examples of such bias in the above article.
Chalk up another victory for Dear Leader's "most transparent administration in history".
The lawsuit alleges that "Justice" has been routinely fulfilling information requests to liberal media organizations in as little as one day while at the same time delaying for months or even outright ignoring similar requests from conservative outlets. PM provides many convincing examples of such bias in the above article.
Chalk up another victory for Dear Leader's "most transparent administration in history".
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Today's TASER Travesty/The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week...
... double winner is Toronto, Ontario Constable Sgt. Christopher Hominuk, who was caught on police cruiser interior cam footage threatening to torture TASER not one but two different handcuffed burglary suspects, one in the neck and one in the genitals, if they didn't immediately provide information on another suspect who was still on the loose:
"Hominuk replied: 'I’ll f---ing Taser you. If you are lying to me, when I get back to the station, I’m Tasering you in the f---ing n-ts.'"
Exactly the kind of misuse that the TASER is specifically not designed for, yet here's clear proof that such undeserved shocking sessions still get handed out with disturbing regularity by out-of-control cops like this one.
We have to give credit where it's due to the unnamed officer with integrity (and guts to boot) who noticed the video footage while researching another case and notified the professional standards branch (presumably the Canadian version of Internal Affairs), who then investigated the incident and referred the cop for prosecution.
Wannabe-Jack Bauer Hominuk pleaded guilty to one count of threatening bodily harm and will be sentenced on June 14, yet oddly enough "He remains suspended from the force with pay."
We don't think we're going out on a limb to speculate that the department is probably on fairly solid legal ground should it decide to can that convicted bully without further delay.
"Hominuk replied: 'I’ll f---ing Taser you. If you are lying to me, when I get back to the station, I’m Tasering you in the f---ing n-ts.'"
Exactly the kind of misuse that the TASER is specifically not designed for, yet here's clear proof that such undeserved shocking sessions still get handed out with disturbing regularity by out-of-control cops like this one.
We have to give credit where it's due to the unnamed officer with integrity (and guts to boot) who noticed the video footage while researching another case and notified the professional standards branch (presumably the Canadian version of Internal Affairs), who then investigated the incident and referred the cop for prosecution.
We don't think we're going out on a limb to speculate that the department is probably on fairly solid legal ground should it decide to can that convicted bully without further delay.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
How many times does this make?
Michelle Obama assures us once again that Dear Leader has finally quit smoking, although her protestations to that effect sound just a wee bit fishy:
"She said she didn't know exactly when he quit 'because he never smoked a lot' and she never saw him light up."
We don't know just why he has been struggling so hard to give them up, then, if his indulgence was such a minor dalliance. And if she never saw him puffing (which we don't believe for a second), then how does she know for sure he's really off the cigs? Well, there's one sure way to find out, as one ex-smoker commenter to the story observes:
"We just need someone to ask Obama his quit date at a news conference. If he can't name it, he didn't quit."
Does he or she make a valid point, former smokers?
We actually are rooting for the President to succeed in this endeavor, as we want him to live a long and happy life so that he will be able to see firsthand how bad the historical analysis of his administration is going to be.
"She said she didn't know exactly when he quit 'because he never smoked a lot' and she never saw him light up."
We don't know just why he has been struggling so hard to give them up, then, if his indulgence was such a minor dalliance. And if she never saw him puffing (which we don't believe for a second), then how does she know for sure he's really off the cigs? Well, there's one sure way to find out, as one ex-smoker commenter to the story observes:
"We just need someone to ask Obama his quit date at a news conference. If he can't name it, he didn't quit."
Does he or she make a valid point, former smokers?
We actually are rooting for the President to succeed in this endeavor, as we want him to live a long and happy life so that he will be able to see firsthand how bad the historical analysis of his administration is going to be.
Quite the dichotomy
USA Today has an article out which highlights the unfortunate effects of the current housing bust in Merced County, California. That state, of course, is the poster child for the deleterious effects caused by high taxes, bad government decisions, a stranglehold on the local economy by thuggish public sector unions and greed by homeowners who leveraged themselves into untenable situations.
We found it quite enlightening that of the four families interviewed for the piece, the one person who waited to buy something he could afford, willingly commutes a long distance to work and is basically making lemonade out of his situation isn't a government worker but rather a maintenance supervisor for a private garbage company:
"'I feel like I won the lottery,' [Ray Ortiz] says."
We found it quite enlightening that of the four families interviewed for the piece, the one person who waited to buy something he could afford, willingly commutes a long distance to work and is basically making lemonade out of his situation isn't a government worker but rather a maintenance supervisor for a private garbage company:
"'I feel like I won the lottery,' [Ray Ortiz] says."
Well done, sir.
The NAACP overlooks calls for lynching because their buddies want to hold the rope
It turns out the race pimps who run today's NAACP aren't particularly bothered with the truly vile people who were recently caught on tape spouting racial abuse and advocating stereotypical violence towards black people at a "progressive" rally targeting conservative oil executives the Koch brothers, mostly because the venal people hurling those noxious epithets happened to be liberals who were targeting the right kind of black people:
"In response to The Daily Caller’s request for comment on a video showing progressive protesters calling for somebody to 'string up' African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or 'send him back into the fields' or 'cut off all his toes and feed them to him one-by-one,' NAACP spokesman Hilary Shelton pointed to the organization’s recent resolution calling for a 'civil political discourse.'"
Contrast this curiously mild (to say the least) rebuke of the NAACP's political and ideological brethren with that organization's hysterical overreaction to an alleged nearly identical incident when they passed a formal resolution condemning the Tea Party over accusations that black members of Congress such as John Lewis were subjected to a torrent of racial abuse and threats while climbing the Capitol steps on their way to vote for Obamacare, allegations that have never been proven despite the presence of hundreds of still and video cameras documenting the scene (many wielded by the legislators' own staffs), not to mention conservative media mogul Andrew Breitbart's announced reward of $100,000 cash to anyone who could provide proof of any such mistreatment.
The disparity between the two official responses is nothing short of stunning, particularly given that the incident that garnered the shoulder-shrugging, we-don't-really-care reaction was the only one to be documented as having actually occurred.
NAACP apparently now stands for the National Association for the Advancement of CERTAIN People. How low that once-noble group has sunk.
"In response to The Daily Caller’s request for comment on a video showing progressive protesters calling for somebody to 'string up' African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or 'send him back into the fields' or 'cut off all his toes and feed them to him one-by-one,' NAACP spokesman Hilary Shelton pointed to the organization’s recent resolution calling for a 'civil political discourse.'"
Contrast this curiously mild (to say the least) rebuke of the NAACP's political and ideological brethren with that organization's hysterical overreaction to an alleged nearly identical incident when they passed a formal resolution condemning the Tea Party over accusations that black members of Congress such as John Lewis were subjected to a torrent of racial abuse and threats while climbing the Capitol steps on their way to vote for Obamacare, allegations that have never been proven despite the presence of hundreds of still and video cameras documenting the scene (many wielded by the legislators' own staffs), not to mention conservative media mogul Andrew Breitbart's announced reward of $100,000 cash to anyone who could provide proof of any such mistreatment.
The disparity between the two official responses is nothing short of stunning, particularly given that the incident that garnered the shoulder-shrugging, we-don't-really-care reaction was the only one to be documented as having actually occurred.
NAACP apparently now stands for the National Association for the Advancement of CERTAIN People. How low that once-noble group has sunk.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Why I carry a handgun for protection, Vol. 45
So that if we are innocently walking down the street with our leashed dog and are attacked by a neighbor's unleashed pit bull and Rottweiler (which apparently have a documented history of such aggressive behavior, including a previous attack several weeks ago on the leashed animal, causing it injury), we will be able to successfully protect ourselves and our canine best friend, which is what happened this morning in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The leashed animal's owner, George Doudhty, has a handgun carry permit and shot the animals attacking his dog, according to the story. The pit bull was DOA; the Rottweiler is being treated at a local vet.
We hate to see anyone's animals injured or killed and it is truly unfortunate that this incident occurred, but the fault here lies squarely at the feet of Randy and Joanne Daise, the neighbors who allowed their dogs to get into these situations in the first place.
"No charges will be filed against [Doudhty] in the dog killing."
The proper outcome. People have a right to walk their properly restrained dogs down a public street without being mauled by aggressive, unrestrained animals. They also have a right to lawfully defend themselves with firearms when so threatened, as the Daises are now finding out to their dismay.
Another of the many daily instances of the justified use of lawfully carried firearms that groups such as the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center somehow insist are rarer than hen's teeth, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
The leashed animal's owner, George Doudhty, has a handgun carry permit and shot the animals attacking his dog, according to the story. The pit bull was DOA; the Rottweiler is being treated at a local vet.
We hate to see anyone's animals injured or killed and it is truly unfortunate that this incident occurred, but the fault here lies squarely at the feet of Randy and Joanne Daise, the neighbors who allowed their dogs to get into these situations in the first place.
"No charges will be filed against [Doudhty] in the dog killing."
The proper outcome. People have a right to walk their properly restrained dogs down a public street without being mauled by aggressive, unrestrained animals. They also have a right to lawfully defend themselves with firearms when so threatened, as the Daises are now finding out to their dismay.
Another of the many daily instances of the justified use of lawfully carried firearms that groups such as the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center somehow insist are rarer than hen's teeth, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
Do as I say, not as I nosh
Dear Leader and his burger-loving wife have made "healthy eating" one of their top priorities of his administration, going so far as to push laws (and unfortunately managing to shepherd at least one through Congress) designed to ban from schools anything the all-powerful government considers to be junk food - including prohibiting serving such foods as pizza and fries in government-funded school lunches, forbidding students from bringing in a cake to celebrate their birthday with classmates and banning bake sales during school hours to raise money for extracurricular events.
Contrast this sort of unwanted paternalism with the White House menu from their lavish Super Bowl party this evening:
"The rest of the menu for the 100 or so guests at the White House bash is tailgate-friendly even if served inside the Executive Mansion: bratwurst, kielbasa, cheeseburgers, deep-dish pizza and Buffalo wings with sides of German potato salad, twice-baked potatoes and assorted chips and dips."
We're not seeing a lot of items from that famous White House garden being featured, that's for sure.
Line up for your gruel and vegetable sticks, peasants. Don't worry about what your betters are scarfing.
Contrast this sort of unwanted paternalism with the White House menu from their lavish Super Bowl party this evening:
"The rest of the menu for the 100 or so guests at the White House bash is tailgate-friendly even if served inside the Executive Mansion: bratwurst, kielbasa, cheeseburgers, deep-dish pizza and Buffalo wings with sides of German potato salad, twice-baked potatoes and assorted chips and dips."
We're not seeing a lot of items from that famous White House garden being featured, that's for sure.
Line up for your gruel and vegetable sticks, peasants. Don't worry about what your betters are scarfing.
Sunday, February 06, 2011
Shut up and lip-synch
(With apologies to Laura Ingraham)
The halftime hired talent at the Super Bowl decided to get in a little politicking whilst halfheartedly performing their medley of semi-famous tunes:
“In America we need to get things straight / Obama, let’s get these kids educated / Create jobs so the country stays stimulated.”
Because Dear Leader's obviously done such a bang-up job so far of sticking his fingers in things he knows absolutely nothing about. Education and the economy, for instance.
The Black Eyed Peas have to get it through their pea-brains that national government officials educate no one and create nothing - ordinary Americans do. Next time how about singing about asking incompetent meddling politicians stay out of the way so that people can succeed or fail based on their own efforts and merit?
The halftime hired talent at the Super Bowl decided to get in a little politicking whilst halfheartedly performing their medley of semi-famous tunes:
“In America we need to get things straight / Obama, let’s get these kids educated / Create jobs so the country stays stimulated.”
Because Dear Leader's obviously done such a bang-up job so far of sticking his fingers in things he knows absolutely nothing about. Education and the economy, for instance.
The Black Eyed Peas have to get it through their pea-brains that national government officials educate no one and create nothing - ordinary Americans do. Next time how about singing about asking incompetent meddling politicians stay out of the way so that people can succeed or fail based on their own efforts and merit?
How embarrassing for those charged with upholding traffic laws in Ye Olde Nanny State
The police departments of two adjacent communities in England, Staffordshire and Cheshire, have had a grand total of 238 car accidents in the last 18 months.
In their own parking lots.
The careless cops over there have cost their taxpayers close to $200,000 in total damages over that short period, and here's the only mention of discipline we can find in the article:
"Now some officers have been told to improve their driving standards."
Wow. We're certain that mild scolding will certainly make them look where they're going next time.
These are the very "professionals", mind you, that are given special powers and charged with enforcing traffic laws and writing tickets to the peasants of that country. How are they supposed to accomplish those tasks when they can't even make it out to the road without getting in fender-benders?
In their own parking lots.
The careless cops over there have cost their taxpayers close to $200,000 in total damages over that short period, and here's the only mention of discipline we can find in the article:
"Now some officers have been told to improve their driving standards."
Wow. We're certain that mild scolding will certainly make them look where they're going next time.
These are the very "professionals", mind you, that are given special powers and charged with enforcing traffic laws and writing tickets to the peasants of that country. How are they supposed to accomplish those tasks when they can't even make it out to the road without getting in fender-benders?
The value of a Harvard Law education just dropped
Harvard Law School Professor Charles Fried testified before the Senate the other day that he believes the government can just ignore the Constitution and 230 or so years of legal precedent and force you to buy whatever it wants you to:
"Yes. We hear that quite a lot. It was put by Judge Vinson, and I think it was put by Professor Barnett in terms of eating your vegetables, and for reasons I set out in my testimony, that would be a violation of the5th and the 14th Amendment, to force you to eat something. But to force you to pay for something? I don’t see why not. It may not be a good idea, but I don’t see why it’s unconstitutional."
We seem to have been quite mistaken - we were under the impression they had knowledgeable professors at Dear Old Hah-vahd. Instead, they appear to have persons who ascribe to the Obama School of Constitutional Studies, which holds the view that the government can do pretty much whatever it pleases, as long as it has "good intentions" for doing so.
They're completely wrong, of course.
Best to send your children somewhere else for their law degree. You'll save money and they'll get a better education.
"Yes. We hear that quite a lot. It was put by Judge Vinson, and I think it was put by Professor Barnett in terms of eating your vegetables, and for reasons I set out in my testimony, that would be a violation of the5th and the 14th Amendment, to force you to eat something. But to force you to pay for something? I don’t see why not. It may not be a good idea, but I don’t see why it’s unconstitutional."
We seem to have been quite mistaken - we were under the impression they had knowledgeable professors at Dear Old Hah-vahd. Instead, they appear to have persons who ascribe to the Obama School of Constitutional Studies, which holds the view that the government can do pretty much whatever it pleases, as long as it has "good intentions" for doing so.
They're completely wrong, of course.
Best to send your children somewhere else for their law degree. You'll save money and they'll get a better education.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
"Ruling" by favoritism and fiat
First we had Dear Leader ram his socialized medicine plan (that was supposed to apply equally to everyone) through Congress by using dead-of-the-night trickery, then he turned right around and exempted many of his friends and supporters (most notably Andy Stern and his union thugs at the SEIU, who donated $28 million to his campaign) from the Ponzi scheme's many onerous (and expensive) requirements.
Next, despite having the entire Obamacare law thrown out as unconstitutional by a federal judge, the Department of Health and Human Services announced its plan to continue implementing the legislation (under some kind of authority as yet unrevealed to us).
Now we find out that the very first project to be exempted from Obama's brand new end-run-around-Congress-imposed EPA mandates on "greenhouse gas" emissions will be a power plant that is purchasing two expensive gas-turbines from G.E., and by extension his good friend (and major campaign supporter and financial donor) Jeffrey Immelt, who is coincidentally Obama's new "jobs czar".
Tim Carney has the details on that one.
And, of course, we would be remiss if we didn't mention that Dear Leader's Department of the Interior has just been hit with a contempt of court citation for blatantly violating the law by continuing to block deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico despite a federal judge's specifically ordering them to not do so. We broke taxpayers now have to pay the legal fees for the oil companies because of that sanction. Thanks, Mr. President!
Isn't this sort of crass political cronyism and cherry-picking of winners and losers, along with the unilateral imposition of one's political will on the peasants regardless of what the other two branches of government have to say about it, the very hallmarks of a dictatorship?
Hope and change, indeed. "Change" into an authoritarian regime that the minor despots of the world can only marvel at with envy.
2012 simply can't get here soon enough. We only hope it's not too late for our republic.
Next, despite having the entire Obamacare law thrown out as unconstitutional by a federal judge, the Department of Health and Human Services announced its plan to continue implementing the legislation (under some kind of authority as yet unrevealed to us).
Now we find out that the very first project to be exempted from Obama's brand new end-run-around-Congress-imposed EPA mandates on "greenhouse gas" emissions will be a power plant that is purchasing two expensive gas-turbines from G.E., and by extension his good friend (and major campaign supporter and financial donor) Jeffrey Immelt, who is coincidentally Obama's new "jobs czar".
Tim Carney has the details on that one.
And, of course, we would be remiss if we didn't mention that Dear Leader's Department of the Interior has just been hit with a contempt of court citation for blatantly violating the law by continuing to block deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico despite a federal judge's specifically ordering them to not do so. We broke taxpayers now have to pay the legal fees for the oil companies because of that sanction. Thanks, Mr. President!
Isn't this sort of crass political cronyism and cherry-picking of winners and losers, along with the unilateral imposition of one's political will on the peasants regardless of what the other two branches of government have to say about it, the very hallmarks of a dictatorship?
Hope and change, indeed. "Change" into an authoritarian regime that the minor despots of the world can only marvel at with envy.
2012 simply can't get here soon enough. We only hope it's not too late for our republic.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Don't mind those uniformed people, they're just clearing the plates
Well, Valerie Jarrett, one of Dear Leader's closest advisers and the one who proclaimed his administration "ready to RULE from Day 1" (emphasis ours) has taken that contempt to a whole new level, according to The Daily Caller:
(link via Boortz)
Your convenient usefulness is at an end, media idiots
The White House Correspondents Association has lodged a formal protest about being shut out of the very events they're supposed to be covering for the public:
"In a letter to Press Sec. Robert Gibbs, the WHCA Board complained about their lack of access to the President throughout the crisis in Egypt and outlined their request to open today’s treaty signing to the White House pool."
The President has once again blatantly ignored his vow of "transparency", this time to the enablers who couldn't find a single thing about him to criticize him during his ascension to the Oval Office. Oh, how the worm has turned.
Well, this is what naturally happens when the mainstream media finally finds their guts and quits being overt cheerleaders for such a narcissistic demagogue of a politician - the access and photo-ops dry up. Did they really expect something different to happen?
"In a letter to Press Sec. Robert Gibbs, the WHCA Board complained about their lack of access to the President throughout the crisis in Egypt and outlined their request to open today’s treaty signing to the White House pool."
The President has once again blatantly ignored his vow of "transparency", this time to the enablers who couldn't find a single thing about him to criticize him during his ascension to the Oval Office. Oh, how the worm has turned.
Well, this is what naturally happens when the mainstream media finally finds their guts and quits being overt cheerleaders for such a narcissistic demagogue of a politician - the access and photo-ops dry up. Did they really expect something different to happen?
Caught playing hooky
"Two Las Vegas police officers are under investigation after they were caught speeding in northern Arizona when they were supposed to be patrolling the streets of Sin City."
100 miles away.
No wonder law-abiding people fight so hard to be able to use their Second Amendment right to possess and carry a firearm for self-protection, as we can only imagine what the response time for these idiots would be to an emergency call for service in their assigned patrol area.
Another shining example of the stellar judgment that can be demonstrated by people that groups such as the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center claim with a straight face are the only ones "professional" enough to carry firearms in public.
(Praise and sincere thanks must go to the Mohave County, Arizona sheriff's deputy who noticed the joyriding pair and put an abrupt end to their stupid shenanigans without giving them a "blue pass".)
100 miles away.
No wonder law-abiding people fight so hard to be able to use their Second Amendment right to possess and carry a firearm for self-protection, as we can only imagine what the response time for these idiots would be to an emergency call for service in their assigned patrol area.
Another shining example of the stellar judgment that can be demonstrated by people that groups such as the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center claim with a straight face are the only ones "professional" enough to carry firearms in public.
(Praise and sincere thanks must go to the Mohave County, Arizona sheriff's deputy who noticed the joyriding pair and put an abrupt end to their stupid shenanigans without giving them a "blue pass".)
We're so cheeky
An email we sent the other day to the editors of the Arizona Republic newspaper regarding an opinion piece in last Thursday's print edition:
"To the Editorial Board:
Your issue piece today regarding tuition tax credits expresses your 'hope the governor sticks to her guns'.
Wouldn't this be a hypocritical example of your using the very so-called inflammatory and violence-promoting rhetoric you so recently lectured us dumb peasants about employing?"
They don't seem interested in printing it, oddly enough.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
The hubris of the arrogant and thick-headed who presume to rule us
Dear Leader's steamrolling-over-rights administration is apparently not going to let a little thing like a federal judge's ruling declaring Obamacare to be unconstitutional (and thus rendering the entire law null and void) prevent them from implementing their precious little Ponzi scheme:
"Noting that the judge did not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said 'implementation will proceed at pace.'"
We'll see about that, Mr. President.
"Stephanie Cutter, Deputy Senior Advisor to the president, issued a blog statement pushing back at the judge’s ruling that Congress cannot force individuals to buy health insurance. She said the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate commerce."
Once again, Ms. Cutter, we feel the need to patiently explain, in a way that even political hacks like yourself can understand, that there's an enormous difference between regulating commerce and the act of forcing someone into participating in that same transaction.
Obamacare is a dead law walking, thanks in part to Judge Vinson's well-reasoned and (to our untrained legal eyes) very difficult-to-overturn decision as well as Mitch McConnell's upcoming attempt this week to force a Senate vote on repeal. It's just a matter of time before the zombie-like remains are buried for good.
"Noting that the judge did not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said 'implementation will proceed at pace.'"
We'll see about that, Mr. President.
"Stephanie Cutter, Deputy Senior Advisor to the president, issued a blog statement pushing back at the judge’s ruling that Congress cannot force individuals to buy health insurance. She said the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate commerce."
Once again, Ms. Cutter, we feel the need to patiently explain, in a way that even political hacks like yourself can understand, that there's an enormous difference between regulating commerce and the act of forcing someone into participating in that same transaction.
Obamacare is a dead law walking, thanks in part to Judge Vinson's well-reasoned and (to our untrained legal eyes) very difficult-to-overturn decision as well as Mitch McConnell's upcoming attempt this week to force a Senate vote on repeal. It's just a matter of time before the zombie-like remains are buried for good.
Memories
Ah, the surly, abusive and all-around thoroughly unprofessional Prince George's County, Maryland Police Department we remember all too well from our youth:
According to the poster of the video (and apparent owner of the home), the officers were hanging out doing something non-emergent while standing in his front yard (which, technically, is trespassing).
The homeowner reports that he went outside to politely ask what was going on and was immediately verbally abused and threatened with being locked up for his trouble. He then went inside, grabbed his camera and began recording the footage seen here, which spurred the one cop to unlawfully order him to go back into the house.
Well done, officers. What wonderful community outreach.
It's actually pretty sad to note that not one thing has changed there in the two decades or so since we made our escape to freer climes.
(via CopBlock.org)
According to the poster of the video (and apparent owner of the home), the officers were hanging out doing something non-emergent while standing in his front yard (which, technically, is trespassing).
The homeowner reports that he went outside to politely ask what was going on and was immediately verbally abused and threatened with being locked up for his trouble. He then went inside, grabbed his camera and began recording the footage seen here, which spurred the one cop to unlawfully order him to go back into the house.
Well done, officers. What wonderful community outreach.
It's actually pretty sad to note that not one thing has changed there in the two decades or so since we made our escape to freer climes.
(via CopBlock.org)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
