Friday, December 08, 2006

And some more information about the Atlanta murder

of an 88-year-old woman. And I do not use the world 'murder' lightly. This should be prosecuted as manslaughter at the least. And yeah, I AM pissed off.

"Your Honor, our informant would not lie to us about something like this!"
It was Fabian Sheats' third felony drug arrest in four months. But on the afternoon of Nov. 21, according to a police report, he was looking to curry favor, so he told officers they could find a kilogram of cocaine in a house at 933 Neal Street N.W.

That encounter led police to the home of Kathryn Johnston, an elderly woman who lived alone behind burglar bars and kept a rusty revolver. When officers burst into the house just three hours after talking to Sheats, a shootout ensued that left the woman dead and three officers wounded. No cocaine was found.

Or maybe "But we would"
Police say they used Sheats' tip to direct a confidential informant to the Neal Street house, where he made a drug buy, leading them to conduct the raid. A man named Alexis White later came forward to say he is a longtime informant and police asked him to lie after the shootings and say he bought drugs at the address. Police will not say who the informant was.

As McQ says, "A known felon, busted 3 times in 4 months and attempting to find favor with arresting officers throws out an address.

3 hours later, armed with a no-knock warrant, police invade the home of Kathryn Johnson. 3 hours. How does one do the appropriate police work necessary to verify the story Sheats has given and obtain a warrant?"
"And the officers in question are still trying to claim it was a good bust because a small amount of marijuana was found in the Johnson home. My guess. Directly from the pocket of one of the officers to the floor of the home ... a little "back up" in case there really were no drugs on the premises."
And as of now, with what we know,is there ANY reason to doubt they'd do this?

I don't know which is worse, as more details come out; the sick feeling in my stomach, or the rage that I feel.

And on that UN 'small-arms' treaty

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The newest mall bomber fits right in

with some stuff I heard a couple of years ago.

Back then, one day we got in a Homeland Security information summary/warning, which was released to the public a month or so later as I recall(why not right away? Beats hell out of me). Among other things found in Afghanistan were al Queda training manuals and video tapes on taking over a store, office, restaurant or school. The idea was fairly simple:
When you reveal yourself kill anyone who resists.
Separate all the hostages and kill anyone who might be a problem later.
Drag the situation out as long and loud as possible(all possible publicity, etc.)
And in the end, kill everyone.
There was no intention to actually get any payment, reform or whatever: the whole idea was as many dead infidels as possible with the most possible disruption.

After I read that, I made damn sure that I was carrying every time and place I legally could, as this- if it happened- was a far greater threat than the usual mugger types. And had a long talk with the kids about watching what's going on around them.

Well, for the second time we have some little BPM* planning an attack on a mall, to cause as much death and injury and disruption as possible. But he supposedly was just a 'lone wolf' jihadi, so we're not supposed to worry too much.

By the way, 'wolf' is far too dignified an appellation for a scumbag like this. How about 'lone jerkoff islamist buttmonkey'? It's a bit long, but I think it fits.

*Beturbanned Prophet Monkey

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Among the reasons why you should read Lawdog

are some of his signature line ideas

"We go in hard and fast. Watch your fire sectors and your threat ID." Happy slammed a full mag into his MP5, "Nail anything taller than four feet except the Queen. Dead queens can't give us antidotes."

Dopey looked up from his equipment check, chin quivering, "What if she won't talk?"

"She'll talk,"
said Doc, grimly, "They always talk. Eventually."

On the subject of whining BPMs

Ran across this at Malkin's place a few days ago, shook my head in disgust and put it aside, then remembered it today.
Fitness USA, a gym chain, is investigating an alleged civil rights violation involving a local Muslim woman who says her afternoon prayer was interrupted by a fellow patron, and that her complaint to management about the situation was rejected.

"The manager told me, 'You have to respect her (the patron), but she does not have to respect your God,' " said Wardeh Sultan of Dearborn. "I've had my membership for seven or eight years, and I've never had a problem with praying there.

I call bullshit. Assuming she's made a point of praying at the gym(and give me a freakin' break on that), and someone said/did something she took offense to, I can't imagine a business manager telling someone that. ESPECIALLY in that part of the country.

Second, I don't trust these people anymore. There are far too many muslims who have shown their willingness to lie in order to get leverage against someone/some company, or just to get publicity. The flying jackasses, for instance. "...her afternoon prayer was interrupted by a fellow patron..." Just what the hell does that mean? She could have decided that someone saying something she didn't like, or using a machine too close or damn near anything 'interrupted her prayer'. No details as to what 'interrupted' her.

Third:Imad Hamad, regional director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which lodged a formal complaint with Fitness USA on behalf of Sultan, said the recent spate of conflicts results from a growing intolerance of Islam and a growing restiveness among Muslims that their rights to speak freely and worship are increasingly at risk.

"They (Muslims) are resenting that they are to be suppressed from expressing themselves freely, like others," Hamad said.
Of course, because we all KNOW how quiet and unwilling to speak muslims have been at any perceived insult/slight/"You didn't kiss my ass so I call RACISM!!!" This is the standard crap groups like this have been spewing for years, and means nothing. Except they've learned the winning formula: scream that you're a victim when anything doesn't go your way, and lots of people will bend over for you.

I'm sick of this. "We want our team to play yours but you have to ban all males from watching or possibly seeing the game" and "We want you to hand the facility over to us or you're a racist", etc.
Side note: your religeon is not a 'race' you idiot; shut the hell up.
Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of Muslim Public Affairs Council, says the right to petition for special accommodation based on religious beliefs is protected by the First Amendment.

"Whether a woman wants to cover her hair or not is her personal choice," he says. "As long as it's not imposed on the rest of society then I don't see any problem."

The problem, you sorry little shit, is that we're not talking about her 'personal choice' to cover her hair; we're talking about you crying "I'm a victim!" every time someone doesn't bow down to what you want.

To quote Quint, it's enough to piss off the Good Humor man.

About Rumsfeld

I've heard a lot of things about him over the last few years. I flat dismissed a lot of it as crap before I even checked into it based on where it came from.

Found this today that covers a lot of the stuff. I don't doubt he could be a pain in the ass to work for. I know he pissed off a lot of people because he did something they either didn't think could be done, or didn't want: he won.

More on possible Democrat/Hamas meeting

over at Captain's Quarters. His general thought is A: it would be stupid as hell, B: it would very possibly be illegal, C: the backlash from a lot of people would be incredible if found out.

Know what? We've got a bunch of people who think we're at fault in everything in the world, who think we need to be messed up to make things 'right', and who have been bending over for various terrorist groups and sympathizers in order to be 'sensitive' and pc; so why wouldn't they do it?

Also, from the YNet story:
The Palestinian news agency Maan, quoting a senior member of the Palestinian government, reported Wednesday that "ministers of the Hamas-led government recently held talks with European countries and with a delegation of the American Democratic Party. According to the source, in the talks, the European officials showed their understanding for Hamas' stance.
Oooh, if European countries are involved, then why not some of the Democrats? Since they think we should be following the EU line in just about everything?

Do not mistake me, I would much prefer this be Hamas throwing out crap to try to inflate their position. But I have doubts, based on past words and actions by some of these people. And a very worrisome thing is this from the post at Stop The ACLU:
Stacie Paxton, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, told WND the party was not aware of any meeting.
Now, think about that wording. It may just be stupidity on the part of this speaker, but it bothers me. I would think that the Democrat Party would be yelling at the top of their lungs "Hell NO!! We DID NOT meet with Hamas like this!" Instead, we get 'the party was not aware of any meeting'. Which really bothers me: it's the kind of Clinton word-game we got so used to. "No the party was not aware of what Rep. and Sen. Whosis and/or their staff members did" is how that could work out.

Check it out for yourself. My stand on 'if it is true' is the same: lamppost, rope, politician.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Now that I have overcome the rage

the story about Democrats meeting with Hamas stirred up, I will go ahead and post what I'd originally intended to:

My son graduated AIT today, with- obviously taking after his father(shut up, Og)- top-of-the-class grades.

He's got a two-week recruiting assignment, then some leave, then he heads off to his first unit assignment. Or duty assignment, or whatever is the right way to say it.

Gonna be an interesting next while.

I guess they're not 'real' scientists,

or they wouldn't write this:
The two researchers from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles (USA) conclude that “the theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is a myth,” and that it has “proved to be an enduring one."

NO!!! But Al Gore said...

The take-home message of Khilyuk and Chilingar’s analysis, as they describe it, is that “any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4-5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls."

I started to relay this to the friend who'd drunk the kool-aid, but decided against stirring her up again. She IS a teacher, no telling what it'd do to her sense of balance to push her blood pressure so high.

The debate on climate change is never boring, the debate is full of surprises, and anyone claiming the debate is over is simply dismissing a significant number of papers that appear regularly in the major journals.

Damn, glad I didn't get rid of the truck.

Added: oh, this would make her lose her composure(more thanks to the good Mr. Blair):

N THE LAST two years, a remarkable amount of disturbing news has been published about global warming, mainly concerning melting of polar ice, tropical storms and hurricanes, and mass extinctions.

The sheer volume of these stories has resulted in some shifts in public attitudes. California has recently passed legislation to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Several bills are being prepared for submission to the new Congress early next year.

What's going on? Can the news really be this bad?

The answer is simple: No. Not if mathematics is any guide.

Ok, if this is true

it's time for the rope and lamppost. Or tree. Or whatever.

Meanwhile, sources close to the Hamas-led government claimed that Hamas representatives recently held talks with officials from the US Democratic Party at a secret location.
Meanwhile, the Bethlehem-based Maan News Agency reported Hamas representatives recently had secret talks with U.S. Democratic Party officials in anticipation of the party regaining congressional power in Washington.

I'm not just yelling words. Any member of the U.S. Government who did this should be hanged. Any member of either party who did this is a traitor.

Just in case it didn't come through how much that pisses me off, they should be hanged, drawn and quartered. Preferably after doing something really unpleasant to them. Because they're the same kind of worthless excuses for humans who'd like to put back in power the man responsible for this:
Michael Trimble described several of the recovered bodies - a pregnant woman shot through her belly, killing the fetus; a young girl wearing little green boots whose leg had been shattered by bullets; an infant apparently smothered under the body of his mother.

It says something about me

that I'd eat there

Further evidence(if needed) that Jimmy Carter is a slug

Check this out at Powerline. Excerpt:
Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

I will add one thing: "Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources", my ass. Carter has access to damn near anything he wants. 'Lack of sources' didn't undermine his understanding, the little bastard understands it just as much as he wants to, i.e. "The nasty Joooos are responsible for everything and get in the way of us sucking up to muslim tyrants and murderers".

I despise this man.

A nice piece on the flying jackasses

from Powerline. Please note the whole series of lies from the 'scholars', and that the testimony from everyone else demonstrates that they were deliberately acting to cause problems.

Leaves two possibilities, possibly connected. One is they just wanted lots of publicity of how 'poor muslims, even scholars, are mistreated'. The other is they wanted to make as much trouble as possible specifically to cause problems for flight crew and other passengers(the standard call the racist, bigots, etc.) so that when the real hijackers attack, people will hesitate to do something.

Either way, they're a bunch of dishonest canker sores on the ass of humanity.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Some more on bad cops

from Alphecca: Cook County prosecutors on Monday charged three more members of an elite Chicago police unit with using their badges and guns to break into homes and shake down residents for money over a two-year period.

One of the problems when bad people get on a force or cops turn bad is crap like this. Another problem is wondering how many times it happens and isn't reported because "Who am I gonna report it to, the cops?", which means there's no good way to guess how often this happens.

And as the guy from Vermont says, "And, of course, if any of their victims had defended themselves or gone to what few honest cops there are in Chicago, they probably would have . . . disappeared?
Police officials say that hundreds of cases have been compromised and dropped as a result of possibly being tainted by these guys."

And the wheels go 'round and 'round...

Some of the latest from Britain

Ranging from socialist politicians 'demonstrating their green credentials, to criminals on parole committing crimes(sur-PRIZE, sur-PRIZE!) to just how well that gun ban is working out.

Motorists face a rise in petrol prices today as the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, demonstrates his green credentials in his final pre-Budget statement.

He is preparing to announce the first fuel duty rise for three years, returning to the policy of raising tax on petrol and diesel in line with inflation.
So, inflation makes your money worth less, so the government raises your taxes. After all, the sonsofbitches can spend it better than you.

"But Britain is SO much safer than here!" says someone. Really?
Nearly 100 people have been murdered by criminals on probation over the past two years, official statistics showed yesterday.

In the latest blow to Labour's claims to be tough on law and order, the figures represented a big rise in killings committed by offenders on licence in the community.

Between 2004 and 2006, there were 98 murders by offenders on supervision – 38 last year and 60 the year before – compared to 53 in the preceding two years.

The Home Office data also showed a surge in the number of rapes by offenders on parole or probation - 106 over the two-year period compared with just 18 in 1999.


A policewoman described yesterday how she was left screaming in agony after being shot at point blank range trying to arrest a suspected burglar.


An ice cream salesman who was shot at close range after he served young children from his van was critically ill in hospital last night.

So the Brits will keep passing laws to demonize/penalize anyone with the balls to defend themselves and getting rid of anything that might be considered 'offensive' while the criminals ignore the law(who'da thunk it?)

'Course, if their government has its way, nobody honest will have anything left to steal except their lives.

Have you thought about what's going to happen

when some jihadi nutcase(hereafter JNC) attempts/begins a serious mass-murder attempt in this country and a citizen with a gun(hereafter CWG) wounds/kills him?

Assume the best-case scenario:
Jihadi nutcase prepares to act
CWG spots him, notices something that puts him on guard
JNC pulls out machinegun/envelope of anthrax/bottle of VX/detonator, yells "Allah Akbar!" and
CWG makes draw and shoots JNC in the head/upper COM and puts him down.

Yes, I know, first reaction is "Present medal for marksmanship and good citizenship, then award large cash sum for future ammo purchases". However, have you considered what the mainstream media and every little leftist buttmonkey and islamist apologist group is going to say?

The pile of horseshit that's going to fall on the poor bastard will be amazing to see. He'll become a racist, a bigot, a hater of minorities, if it turns out to be someone with a long and happy record of being a Good Guy who teaches Sunday school he'll become a slavering CHRISTIANIST!!! who hates muslims. And just WHAT was this CIVILIAN doing walking around with a GUN? What kind of society ALLOWS that?!? And just what made this(murderer in waiting/hater/paranoid/bigot/racist/fill in the blank) think he was CAPABLE of making such a decision? Did he call on the deceased to surrender? Did he give him any real chance to surrender?
Don't tell me about the chemical weapon/bomb/etc.; how did he KNOW that the poor oppressed deceased actually intended to use it?!?

And so on.

And take another step. Say he fires and wounds JNC, and JNC tries to reach the weapon/push the button/open the bottle and CWG aims carefully and shoots him through the head. "Why didn't you just run up and disarm him? WHY did you HAVE to kill him? How long have you hated Muslims and wanted to kill them all?" and so forth.

An awful lot of the major media weenies will do everything they can to demonize him. And in part, I think it'll be because they'd feel guilty. Guilty because privately they'll be thinking "God, I'm glad he stopped that terrorist!", and they'll be ashamed of themselves for being glad the enemy was stopped.

Couple of days ago Tim Blair noted a piece of crap written by a Helen Razer about how she reacted to a power outage on a train. She at first thought 'terrorist attack'(gee, I wonder why?) and then:
My first instinct was to claw my way out of the train. The second was to call my partner and bid an emotional farewell a la the passengers on Flight 77. Fortunately, I did neither. Instead, I looked in the fleeting darkness for the aggressor. My myopic mindÂ’s eye found her. IÂ’d registered the presence of a woman who looked to be about 19. She wore a hijab and a backpack.
"You racist shallow bastard,‚” I told myself.

Couple of things here, but the big one to me is:
She thought 'terrorist attack' right off, and thought she was about to die,
She immediately knew who/what to look for as probable threat if it had been an attack,
And she hated herself for recognizing an unpleasant fact.

Which is exactly what would cause an awful lot of garbage to come out of a lot of people. Oh, there'd be all the usual suspects condemning CWG for their usual reasons, but even a bunch of them would be doing it to cover up their relief at CWG killing the JNC. Because they'd know, down in their guts where it counts, that somebody had prevented a horrible act by a means they profess to hate and fear used against someone they consider a virtual 'protected species'. And rather than admit those things, they'll want to hang the CWG for causing them to feel the relief and causing them to recognize that they KNOW who/what the threat is.

And of course the usual suspects will start up with someone like Katie Couric looking concerned and saying something like "While they feel relief at a dangerous incident(doubt very much they'd have the guts/integrity to say 'terrorist attack') being stopped, the (fill in the blank) say that this demonstrates the hazards of untraincitizensens carrying guns." And on from there.

It boils down to the fact that there are a bunch of people out there who will not/can not admit that a plain citizen with arms can be a good thing. Some of them- the really extreme ones- would rather see the incident happen and a bunch of people die than see some unwashed peasant without a uniform and badge stop it by means of arms.

Carnival of Cordite #80

This time hosted by The Bitch Girls.

Ref the AP 'fake but real' story

First read about the 'people burned alive' story a few days ago. Next thing I read was the 'did this really happen?' questions: in particular, Flopping Aces has been whacking this(just start scrolling down for everything). Then today, Instapundit pointed to this, calling this AP's "60 Minutes Moment".

Which is a real good way to put it. These clowns took a story they apparently didn't bother to actually confirm, from a guy they can't actually show exists, and when they were called on it started the same kind of "How dare you people question US?" crap that Rather & Co. did, and for the same reason: I think they know they can't show the story to be real, they can't produce their 'expert witness', and being seriously questioned on screwing up on this is a real threat to them. So they bluster and insult and "how dare you" and so forth instead of being, I don't know, actual reporters and finding out the facts?

Which feeds into this on this from Bill Roggio on how the troops react to their 'betters' in the major media:
I also overheard an Army specialist sitting behind me curse the media (and I mean curse), saying they didn't know what they were talking about when it came to Iraq. I talked to him, and explained I'm considered a reporter, and that I won't argue with his points. I made him uncomfortable. Had he known I was 'the press' I think he would have kept it to himself.

Gee, now why do you think he might be uncomfortable saying anything around a media rep, hmmmm? Maybe because he sees the evidence of their slant and prejudices every day, maybe?

And one of the sad things about this? AP ran this story because they knew people would believe it, because they know it's the kind of atrocity the terrorists- excuse me, 'insurgents'- would do.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

A couple of weeks ago Tony Blair had a big article

in the Telegraph, I believe, on how necessary national ID cards were, and how most people were just overjoyed at the thought(ok, I'm exaggerating that last).

Well, not so fast, Mr. Blair: Millions may resist database, says poll

The first signs of a significant popular revolt against the Government's identity card scheme have been uncovered by a YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph.

It suggests that hundreds of thousands of people, maybe even millions, would refuse to register on the proposed database that will underpin the scheme, even if this meant a fine or going to jail.

Hmmm, the peasants are revolting, it seems.

Overwhelmingly, the public is unwilling to trust Government promises not to misuse personal information and fears the national ID database will contain inaccurate and unreliable information about them.


Now listen to this: The Act also does not make it a requirement to carry an ID card, again to avoid the so-called "Clarence Willcock effect", named after the last person to be prosecuted for refusing to show his wartime ID cards in 1952, leading to their abolition.

People will either have to produce a card at a police station if required or will simply have their biometrics, which will be stored on the national database, checked by special readers.
Ok, so they don't want to make people actuallycarry the cards to try to keep the upset down, but they want all the information in a database so the cops can say "Stick your thumb in here" and get it. And without doubt throw you in jail if you say "No".

Happily, the Brits are beginning to get their backs up about this, as well as some other things. I hope it continues, as I hate reading about the nanny state taking over all of their lives over there.

Hell, we're not as bad off as they in that respect, and it's bad enough here!

Another couple of bits about the Atlanta killing

I can't find the article right now, when I do I'll update this. They found two things:
The lady only had one round fired in her revolver, and
The injuries to the three officers? All appeared to be fragments, so they may have wounded each other with ricochets.

Just bloody amazing, ain't it?

Added: here's a link

Remember Kim's post a couple of years ago about On*Star?

Where the FBI used the system to listed to conversations a suspect had in his car? Well, I found a link over at The High Road and guess how secure your cellphone is? The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.

There's too much here to excerpt, you ought to read the whole thing. Which means that if I get a cell, a: I'll turn off the locator function and b: take the battery out of the damn thing when I'm talking to somebody about anything I consider private. No, I'm not being paranoid(at least not much), I'm being pissed off. I'd only get the thing in case I actually need to make a call while I'm out, and I don't want to have to worry about some jerk hacking into it, whether fed or general jerk.

I can't find the article at Kim's site, maybe someone has it?

After reading this response to Michal Moore's letter,

he shall hereafter be referred to as Fat Bastard

Though Fat, Scraggly Bastard would be good, too.

12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.

You're going after Murtha? What will everyone think if you eat a war hero?

And what's your stance on corrupt documentary filmmakers?