The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...

... are the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania police officers who saw fit to treat local resident Mark Fiorino, a permit-holder who was innocently walking to a local auto-parts store with a lawfully openly-carried holstered firearm, in the following incredibly abusive manner (warning: foul language):



The other three parts of the encounter can be found at the above YouTube link. They're just as bad as this one.

In what reality is it perfectly acceptable for a police officer, with no reasonable suspicion whatsoever that a crime is being committed, to initiate an encounter with a law-abiding citizen with a disrespectful "Hey Junior", then go on to draw down on that person, curse him out multiple times and threaten to shoot him for moving the wrong way?

"Get on your Fucking knees or I’ll shoot you!"

What absolutely atrocious behavior on the part of the officer.  Ademo Freeman of Cop Block is 100% right - listening to the recording of the encounter, one quickly realizes that Fiorino with his calm and reasonable manner was the true "professional" that day and not the hysterical, out-of-control cop.

Mr. Fiorino was unlawfully detained for over 45 minutes (handcuffed in a paddy wagon, no less) while the Keystone (State) Kops tried to puzzle out some sort of bogus charge with which to run him in.  They finally had to kick him lose when someone with an ounce of common sense figured out that he wasn't doing anything wrong. 

Fortunately for Fiorino, he apparently makes a habit of carrying an audio recorder when open carrying in case just such a massive overreaction occurs. 

(But it's bad to tape the cops, you know, and such an odious practice should be outlawed because, you know, police officers never do anything wrong or abuse their authority, just like they did right here the other day in Philly.)

The "officer" who performed the initial stop in this incident needs to lose his job right this very second.

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.

The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...

... are the Wildwood, New Jersey police officers who not only ticketed a man on the boardwalk there for wearing a T-shirt with the word "fuck" on it (crude and offensive to be sure, but which is in fact protected speech; see Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 [1971]) but also assaulted his companion and threatened him with arrest (along with willful destruction of his camera) for filming this farce from a respectful and non-interfering distance:



Too bad the photographer didn't stand his ground more aggressively and refuse to quit filming no matter what kind of illegal badgering he was subjected to from those wrongheaded "authorities", but we've been in that same situation and understand how nerve-racking it really is to stand up to this kind of official bullying.  He actually made it a lot longer than most people would have lasted.

It certainly appears that these cops need some serious refresher training in just what is Constitutionally-protected speech and activities (and thus perfectly legal to do) in this country.

Unbelievably special treatment for a "special" person

In another outrageous display of legal favoritism towards a person just because of what they happen to do for a living, San Antonio, Texas police officer Craig Nash has been given a single year in jail on a misdemeanor charge of "official oppression" for raping a transsexual prostitute in his custody while on duty:

"As part of a plea agreement, Nash waived an indictment last month and pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor. In exchange, prosecutors agreed not to pursue a felony charge of sexual assault by a police officer, which had a maximum sentence of life in prison."

Nauseous yet?  Hold on tight because it gets far, far worse:

"Two days after the officer's arrest, a second person came forward to say he had also been raped by the officer in 2008. As part of the plea agreement, prosecutors won't pursue the second allegation, according to court documents."

Here's an accused serial rapist with plenty enough evidence to convict him in the latest case, according to the story:

"DNA taken from a rape kit later linked Nash to the complainant, according to court records. The woman picked Nash out in a police lineup and GPS tracking of his patrol unit was consistent with what she said, documents state."

So why does "Officer" Nash get such a sweetheart deal, other than because he wore a badge at his job?  Perhaps he's got dirty pictures of someone high up there.  No, of course it's because he is was a cop. This sort of outcome happens all the time, as we've been forced to point out on multiple occasions.

This brutal thug's been coddled so much up and down the line that his boss on the force won't even summon up the guts to officially can him:

"Nash also agreed to never again seek work as a police officer in Texas. Police Chief William McManus [remember him, Minneapolis residents?  For those not in the know, he was basically run out of that town after proving his gross incompetence there as well] had indefinitely suspended Nash — the equivalent of firing him — last March and said the accusation had arrived as “a hard slap to the face” of other officers."

Suspension, however indefinite, is not the equivalent of firing, as anyone with an ounce of brains knows.  The only "hard slap" here is to the faces of the law-abiding residents of San Antonio, who no doubt would be getting a lot more punishment than a misdemeanor plea agreement had they been accused of similar crimes.

Blatant cases such as this, in which people supposedly in charge of enforcing the law get off with a relative slap on the wrist when they get caught red-handed committing serious crimes, are but one reason why the peasants are getting more and more fed up with the people who are nominally in charge of running this country, and no amount of "civil discourse" is going to change that fact.

"Nash had been a good officer and good father to six children and probation seemed appropriate, [defense attorney Alan] Brown said."

Yep, sounds like he was a fine cop.  Top of the heap.  Probably a Father of the Year candidate to boot.  It's a wonder they bothered to charge him at all.

Breaking news

We've just received word that our friend and fellow activist Joel Rosenberg has been arrested by the Hennepin County, Minnesota Sheriff's Office on a felony warrant, signed by Judge Janet Poston, over his lawful carry of a handgun into Minneapolis City Hall on November 5 of this year (details here, video here)  as well as contempt of court for supposedly defying a judicial order banning carry in Hennepin County courthouses despite his plainly giving advance written notice to Sheriff Rich Stanek as required by law (actually it's wasn't required, since City Hall is not a courthouse and as such does not have security measures in place, which is also why Joel isn't in contempt of court, since a judge can no more designate a run-of-the-mill office building a courthouse than he or she can designate a pickle a hammer).

Joel had been on his way to another meeting with Minneapolis police to obtain some documents pursuant to FOIA requests made by him.  That's presumably when he was taken into custody.

Those are the facts as we know them at this time.  Now our speculation (and the following is our opinion only):

This is nothing more than the malicious prosecution of a man (who happens to be a 56-year-old hypertensive diabetic, by the way) who is rightly taking on the Minneapolis Police Department over (1)  the malicious arrest and recharging by the city attorney, even after the charges have already been already dropped once, of Joel's wife on bogus domestic assault charges over nothing more than her disciplining her daughter in public (the daughter herself doesn't allege abuse), and (2)  Joel's filing of criminal assault charges against Minneapolis Police Spokesman William Palmer for forcibly disarming him when he showed up legally armed at Chief Tim Dolan's office to pick up documents in person that Palmer illegally tried to charge Joel money for, then refused to send as required by the Minnesota Data Practices Act, forcing Joel to show up in person to obtain them.  If what Joel did was such an illegal act then why wasn't he arrested right there and then?  Inquiring minds want to know, as the old saying goes.

More details as they come in, including an upcoming statement from Joel's wife.

UPDATE:  The official place for news and updates about this incident is here.

So who actually ended up being more "respectable", Mrs. Gore?

Dee Snider, the lead singer of hair-metal band Twisted Sister and one of the primary targets of bored housewife Tipper Gore's PMRC back in 1985, comments on the remarkably different paths their lives have taken since he was dragged to those fun-filled hearings by that nosy twit:



"Oh, snap" indeed.

Tipper's glass house most certainly now has a huge rock hole right through the middle of it courtesy of Mr. Snider.  Enjoy the sweet, delicious irony, dear.  You completely deserve everything you're getting.

Good to know

The relatively few "connected" residents of Southern California who are fortunate enough to possess a handgun carry permit will be heartened to learn that shooting an innocent bystander (one who doesn't even make so much as a "furtive movement") is now perfectly OK, at least if one happens to be a police officer in San Bernardino County:

"A district attorney's report says an officer who fatally shot a bystander at a California pizzeria robbery was legally justified.

Chino police Cpl. Claudia Lisner shot 23-year-old Daniel Balandran outside the restaurant on Feb. 1, 2009.

Balandran was leaving a McDonald's and walked into a gunbattle between officers and two robbery suspects.
...
The report says Lisner asked Balandran to show his hands, but he did not. Lisner kept hearing shots and feared for her life, and she shot him in the chest."

After all, if that sort of idiotic reasoning is good enough for the "special people", it's good enough for the peasants, right?

Disgusting, even by Hollywood standards

The usual suspects (liberal Hollywood actors and directors, deigning to take some time off from their recent hero-worship of Venezuelan dictator President Hugo Chavez, and who generally present themselves as emphatic champions of womens' rights and are very outspoken against such crimes as rape and child abuse. Except in this case.) have come rushing to the defense of film director and unrepentant fugitive from justice Roman Polanski, who in 1978 pled guilty to drugging, then anally raping, a thirteen-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson's house in Los Angeles. Polanski subsequently jumped bail before he was sentenced as he was (rightly) facing serious prison time, and he apparently thought that his measly 42-day stay in a mental ward was punishment enough. He has been ducking American law enforcement ever since.

Yes, we know he was a Holocaust survivor and that his wife was brutally murdered by the Manson gang in 1969. None of that excuses his absolutely horrifying and felonious behavior that night.

"Whoopi Goldberg used her spot on ABC's "The View" to try to clear up the record regarding the crime to which Polanski pleaded guilty in 1978.

"I know it wasn't 'rape' rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was 'rape' rape," said Goldberg, dismissing the possibility that Polanski had forced himself on anyone."

Except for one small detail, Ms. Goldberg - the girl testified in front of a grand jury at the time that that's exactly what Polanski did to her, and that's why he decided to cop to the lesser charge of having sex with a minor - to avoid having to face her on the stand in a court trial, where her devastating testimony would no doubt have easily convicted him.

Thanks to Ms. Goldberg, we now know that there's "'rape' rape", which is apparently very, very bad, and then there's plain ol' "rape", which isn't so bad and should be punished lightly, if at all. How about "statutory" rape, Whoopi? Which of these categories do you in your learned opinion think that serious crime should fall under?

By the way, Whoopi, if this same situation were to happen to your daughter or granddaughter, would you be as willing to let the perpetrator off scot-free just because he also happened to make good movies? Your stand doesn't seem so noble and principled when you view it in that light, now does it, ma'am?

Here are some of the other "esteemed Tinseltown luminaries" besides Ms. Goldberg who are agitating for this lowlife worm to be spared punishment for his crime and long years on the lam, according to the article:

Harrison Ford

Harvey Weinstein

Woody Allen (Of course. Aficionados of vulnerable young women have to stick together, you know.)

Martin Scorsese

Debra Winger (Is she still a working actress?)

We're sure there are many others in that industry who feel the same way as the above individuals, but we apologize as we're too nauseated right now to go find out who they are.

We do know one thing for sure - we won't ever spend another dime in the future to view any project with which these execrable people have even the smallest involvement.

Welcome back

I'm flattered, I suppose, to find that I appear to be the go-to person when the Justice Department seeks commentary on the occasion of their latest indictment of a porn company on obscenity charges. Notice how I appear to be bookmarked over there in Potomac (Pretty tony digs for a government agency, by the way), as they don't even bother to search anymore, but just surf right on over for my thoughts on the subject, as they've done in the past when I've weighed in on their other ridiculous prosecutions of film companies for using consenting adults to produce movies for other consenting adults to watch in the privacy of their own homes.

What's worse - wasting untold thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on these freedom-stifling cases that the Feds usually end up losing, or wasting even more time and money by using government-paid Internet connections to see what I and others think about the DOJ's heroic exploits?

Anyway, it's good to see you fellows again. Come by anytime. Maybe one of you could comment sometime about why these types of prosecutions are such a top priority, given all the really serious crimes out there that you could be working on.

Here we go again

The Justice Department, with the investigative help of the FBI and the LAPD (Good thing there isn't anything more important to use these resources on, like say, terrorism or gang crime), has indicted yet another porn company on obscenity charges. Evil Angel Video is going to have to answer in court for daring to produce such filth as Milk Nymphos, Storm Squirters 2 and a trailer for the movie Fetish Fanatic 5.

(Jeez, if the trailer is that titillating, imagine what the actual movie is going to be like. I may just have to order it to find out. Nah, it's probably not my kink. But it is somebody else's, and who is the government to tell them that they can't watch it?)

The Feds apparently haven't yet learned their lesson about the difficulty of prosecuting a company that uses consenting adults to produce fare that consenting adults wish to view, and which doesn't involve children, animals, or butterscotch Jell-O (Maybe there's Jell-O, but boy, I hope not):

"Stagliano and Evil Angel are represented by Al Gelbard, who successfully defended JM Productions principal Jeff Steward in an obscenity case late last year. The government dropped all charges against Steward and JM for lack of evidence." (Emphasis mine)

Then why did they file charges in the first place, if there was no evidence to convict? Harassment, perhaps? Sending a "message" to other companies that they could be next?

Pamela Satterfield of the Obscenity Production Task Force is going to be the one wasting thousands of your tax dollars in this latest Quixotic quest to control what free Americans choose to view in their private homes. That's the real "obscenity" in this case, if you ask me.