Why I Carry a Handgun for Protection, Vol. 61

So that when six 13 and 14-year old feral youth happen to target us for attack simply because the thugs were "bored and looking for something to do" we will be able to successfully defend ourselves, unlike what happened to North Cottage Hill, Ohio resident Pat Mahaney last Saturday.

Mahaney was stomped into unconsciousness by the teens was only saved from a worse fate by an alert neighbor who quickly called police.  He spent four days in the hospital with internal injuries.  The feral youth apparently don't feel the least bit bad about their actions, either:

"'They were pretty arrogant in the interview with us,' [Police Chief Gary] Foust said. 'It’s appalling. I think it’s despicable. This appears to be premeditated and there was no remorse on behalf of any of the assailants.'" 

Foust also maintains that there was no racial component to the case despite all the assailants being black and the victim white.  One can only wonder if he would be so quickly and publicly dismissive of that motive had the opposite been true.

Regardless, if Mr. Mahaney had been equipped and prepared to repel the assault he might be in a far less painful state today.

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution"

For those who don't remember this quaint little scene on Election Day 2008:

That disgusting incident of voter intimidation wasn't deemed worthy of punishment, according to Obama's political hacks.  But the Republicans are the ones who "rule" based on the color of peoples' skin and thus try to deny them their vote.  Riiight.

Now, because of the findings of District Court Judge Reggie Walton, the long-suffering American taxpayer has to pay Judicial Watch's legal fees in the case.

And Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder somehow still keeps his job.

Hispanic. Everyone else. Choose one box

An interesting new change by the Obama Justice Department to ATF Form 4473, which people must fill out whenever purchasing a firearm from a federal firearms dealer:

"Every person completing this form must now, under a new question “10.a,” either confirm or deny whether they are Hispanic/Latino. Failure to do so will cause potential criminal prosecution and a denial of Second Amendment Rights. The Form 4473 has been around since 1968, but never before has one ethnic group been singled out where individuals have to affirmatively state whether they ARE or ARE NOT a member."

We fail to understand the purpose of tracking the number of Hispanics (and only Hispanics) who are purchasing guns, unless Attorney General Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder somehow wishes to tweak the marketing of his Mexican gunrunning campaign for even more stellar results.

And Republicans are accused of being the party of divisiveness and racial profiling?

Desperation time for Dear Leader

"Obama will be speaking Wednesday for the first time as commander in chief at the annual convention of the National Action Network and standing with its founder, the Rev. Al Sharpton - whom the President largely ignored before his 2008 election."

And for good reason - Sharpton is a toxic race pimp of the worst order, being directly responsible for the deaths of 11 people in 1995 after personally and repeatedly inflaming racial tensions against the Jewish owners of a clothing store in East Harlem.  Here are the actual quotes Sharpton and his cronies made at the time.  Read them carefully and dare to disagree with our assessment of him.

It's sickening that the President of the United States would grant a rancid individual like Sharpton a second of his time, much less host an entire event with such a person a mere two days after announcing his reelection campaign.  Dear Leader must be truly running scared about his chances for a second term if he's reduced to associating with that kind of charlatan.

If the old saw is true and one can judge a man by the company he keeps, then most peoples' estimation of the president (Ayers, Dorhn, Davis, Wright, Rezko, and now Sharpton) has to be somewhere in the second subbasement right about now.

A false "parole"

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-IL, is apparently planning to go on a rock star-like 20-city tour to force Dear Leader's feet to the fire over the president's campaign promise to deliver a blanket amnesty to millions of immigrants (of all races) living here illegally.

As part of this farcical publicity event Gutierrez has now introduced the term "parole-in-place" to replace the (rightly) skeptically-viewed word "amnesty", as the former somehow infers that a penalty will be assessed on the people who thumbed their noses at immigration law and jumped the line ahead of the millions of people worldwide patiently waiting to come here the legal way.  A closer look at the plan Gutierrez is proposing reveals that nothing could be further from the truth:

"Under such a plan, Gutierrez explained, parents who are illegally in the U.S. but whose children were born in this country could come forward, go through a background check “and if it’s found that you haven’t violated any other law but immigration status,” you’d be 'frozen' and not deported."

In other words, arrive here illegally and immediately have a child and you would be able to stay indefinitely without so much as a fine, and even eventually apply for permanent resident status once those children turn 21.  That sure is some sweet "parole" indeed.

"Many of the immigrants attending the event were there with young children and babies."

But whenever reasonable people point out the very real concept of "anchor babies" those individuals are immediately labeled as being somehow racist towards Latinos.  This knee-jerk characterization is a complete fallacy, of course, as such kids are not only of Hispanic descent but also Chinese, Turkish and Irish, to name just a few.

Need some specific examples?  How about this story out of California, in which several houses in the city of San Gabriel were busted for hosting Chinese women who came here solely to have their children on American soil, after which the moms happily flew back to their home country with a newly minted U.S. citizen, with all the rights and privileges that status entails of course:

"Immigration experts say they can only guess why well-to-do Chinese women are so eager to get United States passports for their babies, but they suspect it is largely as a kind of insurance policy should they need to move."

How nice that the American peasant can provide such a valuable service for those matrons.

Another one?  Here's an upscale hotel in New York City which advertises month-long stays for Turkish women planning to do the very same thing as the Chinese women.  The place even throws in a free stroller and airport transfer:

"The Marmara Manhattan, a New York hotel which is part of the Turkish warmth chain, exploits the 14th amendment to the US constitution, which points out that all children born on American soil 'are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside'."

...

"Though the price is an inexpensive and easy one to pay for US citizenship. Many will ultimately use the newborn, known as an “anchor baby”, a stepping stone for the immigration of extended family. The hotel has up to now sold 15 of the packages."

Move along, citizen.  No anchor baby abuse going on here.

Look, we are extremely sympathetic to the plight of poor and oppressed people the world over, and even well-off individuals who reside in dictatorships or politically unstable nations that place restrictions on their freedoms.  The United States, however, simply can't accept everyone who manages to arrive here, and we must enforce our borders and immigration laws to prevent our nation from experiencing utter chaos.

Sorry, Mr. Gutierrez, that's the way it's going to have to be.  Good luck convincing the American people otherwise.

Idiocracy

Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder's Justice Department, already on record as showing overt racial bias by refusing to prosecute minorities who commit voter intimidation offenses, is apparently forcing the Dayton, Ohio Police Department to hire certain police recruits who failed the admissions test because "not enough African-Americans passed the exam".

Justice, seemingly based on criteria pulled straight out of their collective rear end, has arbitrarily imposed new passing scores of 58 and 63% on the department's two-part exam instead of 66% and 72%, respectively.  We imagine those esoteric benchmarks were picked to allow the maximum number of minorities to be included in the new cutoff, but then again we're cynical like that.

Does anyone else besides us see a bit of a problem with giving firearms, TASERS, official arrest powers and other serious responsibilities to people, whatever skin tone they happen to be, who have officially proven themselves to be intellectually unfit for the job?

This particular situation is so ludicrous that even the Dayton police union and local NAACP branch, two organizations historically approving of such "affirmative action" measures, are speaking out against the overbearing pressure from the Feds:

"'It becomes a safety issue for the people of our community,' said Dayton Fraternal Order of Police President, Randy Beane. 'It becomes a safety issue to have an incompetent officer next to you in a life and death situation.'"

"'The NAACP does not support individuals failing a test and then having the opportunity to be gainfully employed,' agreed Dayton NAACP President Derrick Foward."

Well, the peasants who live in Dayton now have to worry about 258 such people who now because of Holder's meddling will soon be unleashed into their community, according to the article.  It certainly will be interesting to see how many officer-misconduct lawsuits will be filed against that department in the next few years.

As we've noted in the past, police departments often seem to express an interest in recruiting officers who aren't particularly bright, as those people are presumably able to be easily led and talked out of thinking for themselves.  Here's an agency that actually wants smart cops on their force and now they're told they have to hire a bunch of unqualified people in order to fulfill some sort of mandated quota?

By the way, since when is it the Imperial U.S. Government's (and by extension Eric Holder's) business who a local government entity decides to hire or not hire, especially in the absence of a legitimate complaint from someone claiming racial bias?

Crocodile tears

Minnesota Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison (also variously known by his earlier chosen aliases of Keith Hakim, Keith X. Ellison and Keith Ellison-Muhammad) apparently was a sad panda during Representative Peter King's House hearing yesterday on the disturbing recent increase in radical behavior among some Muslims:

"The congressman tried to hide his tears behind his papers and quickly left the room after his remarks."

Maybe it's us but we think Ellison's convenient photo-op weepfest was just a tad bit disingenuous, especially given his previous apparent self-identification as a Muslim-first individual, plus his promotion of the militant agenda of the Nation of Islam in published articles while in law school as well as being a spokesman for that group, plus his past vigorous defense of such various peace-seeking and bridge-building luminaries as Sharif Willis (convicted murderer and drug lord as well as Minneapolis Vice Lords gang leader),  Kathleen Soliah (convicted Weather Underground terrorist) and Khalid Muhammad (virulent racist and anti-Semite NOI leader).

When one looks at his history in that light, it sure seems like Mr. Whoever-He-Is-Now had a significant hand in creating the very problem he now wants the government to overlook, mostly because some people consider it somehow racist to legitimately investigate how the more radical elements of Islam may have influenced such recent events as the attempted New York City car bombing, the Fort Hood massacre, the Saudi student nailed trying to build bombs in Texas and the murder of a soldier at a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting station.  If the Christian Coalition or B'nai B'rith were linked to a similar disturbing rise in violent activities we would want those groups investigated just as thoroughly.

We had the "pleasure" of observing Mr. Ellison in action back when he was a member of the Minnesota Legislature and can personally vouch for his being a rude, opportunistic jerk who isn't the least interested in a dialogue with anyone who disagrees with his narrow agenda.

Hey Keith - did you ever catch up with those years of back taxes and piles of unpaid traffic and parking tickets?

The Florida Department of Transportation is run by liars and lawbreakers

Via WTSP in Tampa, Florida comes a disturbing story by citizen journalist Joel Chandler about highway toll takers in that state regularly unlawfully detaining as well as demanding personal information from "certain" drivers (mostly horses of a different color, if you catch our drift) who have the audacity to pay with a $10 or larger bill.  The workers then threaten to call the Highway Patrol when the motorists refuse to roll over and obey.



"Chandler says to the toll taker, 'So I'm being detained?' She says yes sir."

And, of course, the highway department compounds the abuse of their taxpayers by going right ahead and swearing up and down that they aren't doing any such thing, all the while frantically sending out the word to halt the scheme because they've been found out:

"When Chandler called and e-mailed the Florida Department of Transportation to complain about the policy, he was told there is no policy to detain people who give large bills... Chandler continued to complain and on July 21st at 7:19 p.m., he received an email from the assistant General Counsel of FDOT saying essentially the department didn't know what he was talking about and they don't have sufficient information to investigate. However, earlier that same day, there were a flurry of e-mails going back and forth in the department saying shut the program down, temporarily suspend it and who should call Chandler and what should they say." 

We don't know what's worse - minor government functionaries ordering employees to exceed their legal authority or their blatantly lying to a complaining taxpayer's face about it.  Either way, the coming class-action lawsuit should be quite enlightening.  Too bad there's not a provision for the martinets who dreamed up this program to pay the damages out of their own pockets.

If nothing else, this story provides another clear example of why the American peasant should be free to record without fear of reprisal the public actions of the government workers whose salaries they pay.

UPDATE:  Trigger bill denomination changed per the documents shown in the video.

Someone get him his blanky

U.S. Attorney General Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder got his panties in a bunch yesterday while being grilled by Congress as to just why his Justice Department saw fit to dismiss slam-dunk cases against the New Black Panthers who were found to have engaged in blatant voter intimidation on Election Day 2008 at a polling place in Philadelphia: 

"The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment [Texas Rep. John] Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.

'Think about that,' Holder said. 'When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people,' said Holder, who is black."  (emphasis ours)

Mr. Holder, to be perfectly frank, is an idiot.  Here's just some of the considerable civil-rights bonafides of Mr. Bull, the eyewitness (he was a poll watcher at that very precinct on the day in question) to the Panther incident and the man whose opinion our oh-so-competent A.G. so cavalierly pooh-poohs:

"Bartle Bull was born in 1940 and graduated Harvard College in 1963, attended Oxford 1963-1964, and graduated Harvard Law School in 1967. He was admitted to practice in New York in 1967. In the 1960s Bull worked for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law seeking to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Mississippi protecting both black voters and black political candidates from voter intimidation."

Mr. Bull put his life on the line as much as anyone else during that period to ensure the right of blacks to vote.  And the folks he spent years fighting for weren't even "his people", as Mr. Holder so elegantly puts it, as Bull happens to be white.  Yes, Mr. Holder, other racial groups besides blacks fought (and sometimes died) to advance the cause of civil rights in this country.  Maybe you should have paid more attention in history class.

In short, if Bartle Bull (a lifelong liberal Democrat, by the way) says he saw voter intimidation you can take it to the bank.  Yet all Holder can do is "take personal offense" when he's asked legitimate questions about why his department refused to connect with the hanging curveball of a default judgment against these petty thugs.

Well, no one cares about your precious self-esteem, Eric.  Do your job by enforcing the law fairly and without racial bias and you won't have to worry about sniveling in front of Congress about how your feelings are so hurt.

"Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Democrat from Philadelphia, said the Black Panthers 'should not have been there.' But he said the GOP was making too much out of a fleeting incident involving a couple of people."

We wonder if Mr. Fattah would be holding that same milquetoast opinion if those "couple of people" had been white and wearing hoods and sheets instead of being black and wearing paramilitary gear while brandishing nightsticks.

No, we imagine he wouldn't.

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.

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)

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.

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.

That's all you can come up with?

"Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran is blaming his party's losses last November in large part on voters who 'don't want to be governed by an African-American.'"

Moron Moran is rapidly approaching Bidenesque-levels of foot-in-mouth disease.

That statement is completely false, both here as well as everywhere else in the country save for a few blockheads leftover from the Dark Ages.  We would be ecstatic if the White House were occupied by Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain or any other of a large group of freedom-promoting, fiscally-conservative individuals who, by the way, coincidentally happen to be black.  Our problem with the current president is solely his collectivist ideology, not his skin color.  Moran might as well accuse us of not being approving of Obama because his ears are too big.  That argument's just as silly.

"'In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash,' Moran said." (Emphasis ours)

Well, Moran got the bold part of the quote correct in any event.  We indeed don't want Dear Leader to "spend money on everyone", mostly because it isn't his cash that he's handing out like candy in the guise of "investments" to his core supporters such as labor unions in return for votes.

Shame on the Congressman for attempting to label peoples' genuine political differences with the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration as mere race-baiting.  It does demonstrate, though, that liberals such as him have no intellectual arguments left and are thus forced to engage in such despicable behavior in a desperate attempt to salvage what's left of the tattered "Hope and Change" agenda.

They must have slept through literature class in high school

Bike Bubba has the best take we've seen on the meddling doofuses who have taken it upon themselves to censor all the "offensive" words out of an upcoming edition of Huckleberry Finn.  Words that are crucial, by the way, to the book's central theme of Huck coming to understand and appreciate the humanity of the put-upon Jim, as well as being an indicative history of the racial strife of that period.

How are people supposed to learn from (as well as not repeat) the mistakes of the past once they've been whitewashed (pun intended) out of existence?

Are we going to see these self-appointed guardians of America's precious little snowflakes call out Alex Haley's Roots as next in line for evisceration, since after all that Pulitzer Prize-winning tome contains the exact same words (and on many more occasions, as well as graphic depictions of racism and slavery)?  Or are these moral arbiters of free speech going to state with a straight face that it's perfectly OK to use those words in the latter instance because Roots was written by a black man?

The next "offensive" term to be purged from the lexicon by the propagandists in the media

A self-purported professional journalism group reveals its utter lack of objectivity by appealing to the media to censor a term that's nothing more than an accurate description of certain peoples' legal status in this country:

"The Diversity Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) is seeking to 'inform and sensitize' reporters nationwide about how 'offensive' the term 'illegal immigrant' is to Latinos."

Despite the fact that illegal immigrants as a group are ironically about as diverse a population as one can have - Chinese in San Francisco, Irish in Boston and Africans in New York City, to name a few examples.  Why, Dear Leader's own "Dear Auntie" Zeituni Onyango until quite recently was just such an individual, and there was nothing remotely Hispanic about her Kenyan background the last time we checked it out.

Sorry, Diversity Committee re-educators.  Your biased attempt to turn words you don't like into some kind of newly-created racial epithet in a desperate attempt to redirect the debate over "illegal immigration" (oops, we wrote it) simply isn't going to work.

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

... are the members of the Philadelphia Police Department who have been continually harassing 24-year-old licensed security guard and concealed-carry permit holder John Solomon, merely due to his insistence on carrying his holstered firearm while waiting to catch his regular bus, a perfectly legal act in that city.

The Philly cops arrested Solomon two days in a row last week over his refusal to not carry at the bus stop and have once again confiscated his pistol (the one that was just returned to him from another unlawful confiscation last August) and guard license, yet they haven't seen fit to charge him with a crime in any of the incidents (mostly because he isn't committing one, save for possibly carrying while black, something that's still all-too-common in today's America).  Oh, and Solomon claims that during this latest roust the cops erased pictures of other bus-riders he had taken at the time from his cell phone.  Can anyone say "evidence-tampering"?

Special mention has to go to department spokesman Sgt. Ray Evers for his utterly poor attitude when discussing his department's unlawful actions:

"Police think that Solomon was being insolent and used poor judgment, including by showing up armed at the same bus stop at which he was arrested the previous day.

"If he's that defiant, should this guy have a gun?" said Sgt. Ray Evers, a police spokesman."

Gee, Sergeant, we didn't realize "defiance" and "insolence" were against the law, especially when they take the form of refusing to obey an illegal order from a random uniformed goon.  We actually think that's showing some pretty decent judgment on Solomon's part, to be perfectly frank.

If what Solomon's doing is so wrong, by the way, then how about charging him with a crime?

"Evers said that Solomon has been 'evasive and uncooperative' and that police had every right to take his guns and permits.

Solomon has the right to not answer questions from a passing officer, and asserting that right is also not against the law.  Boy, one sure doesn't have a lot of rights in Philadelphia, at least according to their cops.

"'The gun has been taken because when you go through the process of arrest, we have the right to take your gun and secure it and you have to fight to get it back,' he said."

Again, that's perfectly appropriate, assuming the person is subsequently charged with a crime.  Solomon, we remind everyone, has not been given so much as a ticket, despite all of these obviously bogus collars and his many hours of sitting in a holding cell.  

Solomon's attorney must be absolutely licking his or her chops at the size of the large civil-rights claim they are no doubt preparing at this very moment.  Too bad the award will come from the pockets of the city's peasants rather than directly from thugs like Evers.

Disagree with Obama and liberal Latinos on immigration policy? You're now an "enemy"

"And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us, if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2."  (emphasis ours)

- President Barack Obama on Univision, October 25, 2010  

So according to Mr. Obama anyone, whether Hispanic or not, who legitimately and sincerely opposes such acts as a mass amnesty for illegal aliens or passage of the "DREAM" Act (which would allow illegal immigrants up to age 35 who were brought here as children to stay once minimal requirements are fulfilled) is now considered to be an "enemy" of both himself and the Latino community (who or whatever that is), despite the fact that many illegal aliens are from such diverse places as Europe, the Middle East, China and even Africa, the most famous example of the latter of course being Dear Leader's own dear "Auntie" Zeituni Onyango. 

An interesting choice of words from our benevolent master, who was once upon a time full of flowery promises of working tirelessly to bring our nation together, or some such nonsense.  How quickly all those assurances of a post-racial administration went out the window once he and his socialist community organizer buddies took over the White House.

And why was this fascinating piece of the interview not reported anywhere on the major mainstream news outlets?

One more week until this wannabe-despot's power begins to be checked in a serious way.  Hang in there.

Eating their own for daring to stray from the reservation

National Public Radio, a well-documented liberally-biased "media" organization substantially financed by tax dollars extracted from the peasants on pain of imprisonment, has fired liberal but well-regarded-by-all commentator Juan Williams (himself a minority) for expressing his personal opinion on another network (Fox News) that he gets "worried and nervous" when he boards an airplane and sees people dressed in Muslim-style garb.
 
Uncomfortable and not-PC?  Yep. True for a lot of people?  Again, emphatically yes.  Williams is only expressing what we ourselves have experienced when flying, and we're not bigots either.

Way to stifle the free expression of ideas, NPR.  Williams wasn't attacking anyone personally or even criticising Islam but merely pointing out a fact of life in today's America.  Shame on you for canning him for daring to discuss it candidly in the open.

By the way, can anyone explain why in an era of literally thousands of free and low-cost choices of news and entertainment selections on broadcast television, radio, Internet and cable and satellite outlets, taxpayers are forced by their masters spend millions of dollars funding an anachronism of a network which purports to be for everyone but in reality targets a liberal audience?

It's time to send this pathetic leftover of the Great Society into a long-overdue retirement.

The bill for some very bad policing comes due

Our good friend Joel Rosenberg alerts us to the news that the state of Minnesota will now be spending about 3 million dollars of their taxpayers' money to compensate the many innocent victims of the incompetent and abusive thug-ridden as well as scandal-plagued (and now disbanded because of those very factors) Metro Gang Strike Force:

"After victims are compensated, any money left over will create a fund to educate officers on community policing within minority populations."

Because, you know, cops need to be informed that it's just as wrong to personally profit by ripping off innocent minorities as it is to rob white people.  Sheesh.

"Attorneys for the Strike Force say in court documents that their clients deny liability but agree the settlement is fair."

Of course they think it's fair.  The money isn't coming out of their pockets.

The members of this rogue organization aren't out of the woods yet.  The Justice Department is still investigating the many crimes allegedly committed by this "gang" of out-of-control thieves, and we wouldn't be surprised if some of them indeed ended up in cells right next to the gangbangers they were supposed to be targeting in the first place.