Friday, January 18, 2008

It should not surprise me that this piece of walking crap

is from California. Poor little baby caught lying, and demands he face no penalty for it.
Alvarez, an elected representative to the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, said last year at a water district meeting that he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his deeds as a Marine.

After admitting he never served in the military, he was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act. He pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor charge.

Alvarez's lawyer Brianna J. Fuller argued in the motion to dismiss, which will be heard Jan. 14 in federal court, that "protecting the reputation of military decorations" is not a compelling enough reason to place "restrictions on false statements."

I'm guessing you actually know this, you miserable bastard shyster, but this is not to 'protect the reputation' of a decoration: it's to punish stinking bastards like your client for claiming they served at this level and were decorated for it.

Your abscess on the ass of mankindclient couldn't simply lie, oh no, he claimed not only to have been a Marine, but to have committed such an act of bravery as to be noted by the Medal. And now he thinks it 'not fair' that he pay the price for his lies.

Make you a deal: all charges dropped, and we offer a selection of Marines the chance to make their displeasure with him known. How 'bout that?

The Last Testament of George MacDonald Fraser

is found here. And I very much thank Sondra for linking to it, as I hadn't seen it before.

I'll just take note of two things here. The first:
Furthermore, it makes grieving part of the national culture, as it was on such a nauseating scale when large areas were carpeted in rotting vegetation in "mourning" for the Princess of Wales;
Shortly after the death, I was at the Scottish country dance group that used to run every Thursday night, started and run by a gentleman named Ellis. He'd emigrated here after WWII(once mentioned, looking at my bike, that he'd been a motorcycle messenger in the Royal Greenjackets), set up a tailor business and did quite well. Just before the night ended a guy mention to Ellis that "There's a card downstairs at the bookstore that people are signing to send to the Royal Family, if you want to sign it." Ellis just looked at him and said "Why?" It shocked the guy, Ellis was supposed to be ready to run right down and put his signature on the card. But Ellis was of Mr. Fraser's generation, and that didn't happen.

The other:
Whether the public can be blamed for letting them pursue their ruinous policies is debatable.

Short of assassination there is little people can do when their political masters have forgotten the true meaning of the democracy of which they are forever prating, are determined to have their own way at all costs and hold public opinion in contempt.

I feel I speak not just for myself but for the huge majority of my generation who think as I do but whose voices are so often lost in the clamour.

Damn. It's a good thing this was printed now; I can see a variety of politicians and bootlickers having cows over that passage and demanding 'something be done' about him for saying it if he were still walking around. Especially since it can be argued to be quite true.

Ah well, he was a good man.

Roundup time

Digging around, remember the "We're all gonna get Mad Cow Disease and Die!" dance a while back? Not so fast, Guido. Lots of "Everybody who eats meat isn't dying, but we might still be in danger" stuff, with this at the end:
But Frances Hall, of the Human BSE Foundation said she would rather see researchers focus on developing a test that could pick up early signs of the test in those who were affected.

"I don't think estimates of numbers makes a lot of difference to people who have been affected, or people who are worried about it." Bold mine

That's part of the damn problem: a lot of media weenies worked damn hard to scare people to death over it. And if you're one of the unlucky few the numbers mean little; if you're one of everyone else, they point out just how overblown this was.

Next, something on the atrocity against free speech known as the Alberta Human Rights Commission:
...Levant was the clear winner in the debate and that offended Soharwardy, who marched down to a Calgary Police station and demanded that they arrest Levant for offending him during the debate and simply discussing the cartoons in the media.

After the officers explained that they didn’t do that in Canada, Soharwardy filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The Commission is made up of individuals appointed by the government to hear human rights complaints. The commissioners are a mish-mash of lawyers, nurses, politicians, engineers, who may or may not have direct legal experience. It costs nothing to file a complaint, so Soharwardy could avail himself of it at no charge while the defendant bears the cost of his defense.

Wonderful, isn't it? Any jackass of the legions of the perpetually offended clown who feels 'offended' can complain at no cost to themselves, and- if nothing else- try to bankrupt whoever offended them. I remembered something about these people, and dug this up:
"'I told him that it seemed to be an abuse of the Human Rights Act for someone to try and use it as an instrument of censorship. And when I said that, on the phone, there was a pause and then he said, in a somewhat astonished tone: "But the Human Rights Act is about censorship." Then it was my turn to be silent on my end, because I found that breath-taking. For the Human Rights Commission's own mediator to acknowledge that censorship was the purpose of their Act."

Next up, Insty pointed to this at the Huffer-Puffer site, summed up by this:
At one end of the spectrum, former Senator Gary Hart warns that Democrats are vulnerable and unprepared. "The ghost of Karl Rove will raise the specter of terrorism and swift boat whomever the Democrats nominate. The fear card is the last resort of the collapsing W. coalition," he said.
GARY FREAKIN' HART!?! "The ghost of Karl Rove"?!? "The fear card"?!? As Lawdog might say, Sweet Shiva, these people are nuts! And this:
Similarly, Brookings Institution foreign policy scholar Ivo Daalder argued, "Terror and fear are the only things the Reps can run on -- and so they will. Every Democrat knows that. But the country is clearly hunkering for a leader who can also address their real and current fears, which are economic first and foremost. So the Democrats have to talk about these issues, which surely aren't peripheral to the voters. That doesn't mean that they should not talk about national security -- they should, they do, and they will."
Well, Ivo, I've got to tell you something: I have concerns about the economy, but that thing about the people who want to kill us all, that kind of takes a serious position, too. Being the dumb guy in flyover country that I am. Damn, this is enough to make me wonder if these people have had their shots.

Speaking of which, Peters has this on the 'study' the NYEffin' Times put out on vets:
To a darkly humorous degree, all this reflects the Freudian terrors leftists feel when confronted with men who don't have concave chests. But it goes far beyond that.

Pretending to pity tormented veterans (vets don't want our pity - they want our respect), the Times' feature was an artful example of hate-speech disguised as a public service.

The image we all were supposed to take away from that story was of hopelessly damaged, victimized, infected human beings who've become outcasts from civilized society. The Times cast our vets as freaks from a slasher flick.

The hard left's hatred of our military has deteriorated from a political stance into a pathology: The only good soldier is a dead soldier who can be wielded as a statistic (out of context again). Or a deserter who complains bitterly that he didn't join the Army to fight . . .

Lastly, this from Michelle Malkin on the 'housing crisis'. Which I'm not all that impressed with, so far as a lot of the people being whacked by it.(I'm very concerned with how it screws with the economy). When I was looking for a house, I was pre-approved for a loan that was, let us say, rather generous. As in "I can make payments on a loan that size. If I don't eat too much or buy any clothes for the next few years." I only looked at houses that I could afford the payments on. I've got damn little sympathy for someone who 'bought' a house they couldn't really afford the payments on, or got one of those idiot 'interest only for x years' loans. Especially when they start whining now that everyone else should bail them out.
And let us not forget the idiots who approved these loans, and the ones who made them, who are now coming around with their hands out: Screw you, dumbass.

Dirtbag lawyer who keyed Marine's car


Go read the whole thing at BlackFive. I will put two of the comments from WP91 at the courthouse, because it's just too good not to:
The case was called at 13:33, and the Defendant did not show up. There were 2 heavy hitter State's Attorneys here to handle it. The Judge increased his bond to $20,000.00 or 10 percent cash, and put out a warrant for his arrest.

The Defendant called at 13:40 to say that he will be a half an hout late and was waiting for the media to leave. The Judge said in open court that if he does shows up he will be taken into custody, and if he doesn't he is fair game for any law enforcement agency that wants to pick him up. Will report further developments as warranted.

Which was followed by:

The update: At 1400 hours the defendant showed up, and was told that he was half an hour late. The Judge stated on the record that the defendant had done the same thing during the previous court date, and he said that the defendant called and said that wanted to wait for the media to leave. The Judge said "That is not the way I run my courtroom." He increased the bail and took him into custody and told him to try and work out a deal with the State. About 25-35 marines and assorted military were there.

The case was recalled at 14:22, and the State said that the defendant had asked for permission to put his belt and such back on. The Judge said, "Treat him like all the other prisoners." The defendant was brought out and the plea deal that they had worked out was entered into the record.

The Judge asked him if he had committed the specific acts he was accused of. The defendant hemmed and hawed, and the Judge raised his voice to make him say yes or no. The defendant agreed, and the Judge read the facts into the record. Several times, the Judge said if there were no deal, he would be given a court date just like any other defendant, and he could try and make bail soon.

The deal: 1 year Social Service Supervision, restitution of 600 dollars to be paid to Social Services and which would go to the Injured Marine Semper Fi fund, to be paid by February 25th, 2008, and $50/month in supervision fees.

The Judge then, in as angry a voice as I have ever heard him use, scolded the defendant, saying that the Marine license plates the complaining witness had were not vanity plates or about ego, but the proceeds go toward the Marine and Navy scholarship fund for the children of fallen soldiers, sailors and marines. These Marines protect his very existence "so people like you can enjoy their freedom." He further said that the reason there were so many in the courtroom and so much public interest is that the Marines have a tradition since 1775 that "No Marine gets left behind." Several Hoorahs in the courtroom.

And then the deal was done, and he was taken away by the sheriffs to be released later. Bold mine

Ah, the scent of self-righteous asshole roasting on an open fire...

Thursday, January 17, 2008

They found Bun-Bun

Or a close relation, at least

As a follow to yesterday's note about Coburn

endorsing McCain, Senator Coburn was on a local show on KTOK at four this afternoon giving his reasons. To say I was unconvinced would be a rather drastic understatement.

Which I noted in the e-mail I sent to the Senator's office a few minutes ago, as a followup to the one yesterday asking, in polite terms, "What the HELL is wrong with you?" After hearing at the end of the interview that he and his family are on a ski vacation, I'm tempted to think one of two things:
There's some kind of deal with McCain for some reason(God knows what, but odd things do happen), or
Coburn ran into a tree- headfirst- shortly before thinking "McCain is the man!"

In either case, damn.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

I read of this atrocity known as H.R. 1955 before,

and- having lost track of it- just got whacked with this and this. Just bloody wonderful. Especially since I found out my Rep. Mary Fallin voted for it. I had to find that out at GovTrack(which I now have bookmarked). I also found this:
Oct 23, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. The totals were 404 Ayes, 6 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting.

When the congresscritters 'suspend rules' to cut debate like this, it's usually not a good thing for us. And yes, I'm telling her what I think of it.

And just to make my day complete, I found out that Sen. Coburn has endorsed McCain for President.

Appropriately for both, it's overcast, cold and raining outside.

I once read of an early Islamic scholar saying "All history before Islam

is without merit", something along those lines. Apparently it an especially important view when Jews are involved in the history.
"The government is in the final stages of constructing a dam in southern Iran that will submerge the archaeological sites of Pasargad and Persopolis - the ancient capital of the Persian Empire," the report states. "The site, which is considered exceptional in terms of its archaeological wealth and historical importance, houses the tomb of the Persian King Cyrus."

Cyrus, who lived from 576-530 BCE, liberated Babylonian Jewry from their exile in the famous Declaration of Cyrus (mentioned in the book of Ezra in both Hebrew and Aramaic).

You'll note the Iranian scholars are asking the ICC to do something. I'd suggest they not hold their breath on that.

Well, one guy got some restitution for being slimed

by the PC Police.
A former BBC presenter has won damages after being wrongly arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred for "light-hearted" remarks at a country fair.

Robin Page, who hosted TV's One Man And His Dog, fought a five-year campaign to clear his name after being locked up in a cell for his jokey introduction to a pro-hunting speech.

He told a meeting in Framptonupon-Severn, Gloucestershire, in 2002: "If you are a black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, onelegged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you."
OOOH, he said something INSENSITIVE!
Two officers from Gloucestershire Police travelled to Cambridgeshire to arrest Mr Page at his cattle farm.

He was held in a cell at a police station for 40 minutes before agreeing to be interviewed without a lawyer present.

Mr Page, 64, said yesterday: "I was told I had committed a 'hate crime', interviewed under caution-and given police bail."

No charges were brought but he was never given any explanation for his treatment.
"...agreeing to be interviewed without a lawyer present." Isn't that interesting?

And after receiving a settlement,
"Annoyingly, the police sent my cheque in an unstamped envelope.

"I had to go to my local post office to pay £1.24 to pick it up. I'm not all that convinced it was a mistake."

He said the Freedom of Information disclosures had also revealed he was on a police "homophobic incident record" and he fears his name has not been removed.

He said: "How can you be included on a homophobic incident record for using the word lesbian once in a speech? It is just incredible. Political correctness is the new McCarthyism."

Police hate to be asked "Don't you have any actual crime to deal with?" But those involved in crap like this should have it asked of them. Often.

Of course, they'll probably consider it 'hate speech' and write you a ticket.

Thanks to Theo for pointing this out.

Jeff transcribes what the miserable socialist

hoplophobes say, so you don't have to sit through this crap.

Senator Clinton, when you ran for the Senate in 2000, you said that everyone who wishes to purchase a gun should have a license, and that every handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry. Will you try to implement such a plan?

CLINTON: Well, I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people.
And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they’re back on the streets.
Lie, bullshit, etc. What else would we expect from Clinton?

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, when you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

OBAMA: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what I do think we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. One good example — this is consistently blocked — the efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers.

That’s not something that the NRA has allowed to get through Congress. And, as president, I intend to make it happen.

No mention, of course, that law enforcement agencies were against the measure he speaks of(Uncle and Kevin, among others, have covered that); much better to blame the NRA for not 'caring about the victims', etc. Along with the obligatory
And it is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot.

And from Edwards:
...And I think it is enormously important to protect people’s Second Amendment rights.

I don’t believe that means you need an AK-47 to hunt. And I think the assault weapons ban, which Hillary spoke about just a minute ago, as president of the United States I’ll do everything in my power to reinstate it. But I do think we need a president who understands the sportsmen, hunters who use their guns for lawful purposes have a right to have their Second Amendment rights looked after.

As Jeff says, "Well thank you very much but I think I have the right to decide for myself what I’ll hunt or sport shoot with."

And all these clowns, as noted above, are being very careful to talk about the rights of 'hunters and sportsmen' as their way of dumping the real core of the 2nd.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Quote of this day,

borrowed from Kevin:
"...if one does accept the plausibility of any of the arguments on behalf of a strong reading of the Second Amendment, but, nevertheless, rejects them in the name of social prudence and the present-day consequences produced by finicky adherence to earlier understandings, why do we not apply such consequentialist criteria to each and every part of the Bill of Rights?"
Sanford Levinson

A quick note of two levels of nanny-state BS

First, from Britain:
Ministers are planning to implant "machine-readable" microchips under the skin of thousands of offenders as part of an expansion of the electronic tagging scheme that would create more space in British jails.

Amid concerns about the security of existing tagging systems and prison overcrowding, the Ministry of Justice is investigating the use of satellite and radio-wave technology to monitor criminals.

But, instead of being contained in bracelets worn around the ankle, the tiny chips would be surgically inserted under the skin of offenders in the community, to help enforce home curfews. The radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, as long as two grains of rice, are able to carry scanable personal information about individuals, including their identities, address and offending record.
Undoubtedly as a field test before admitting the idea issaying that safety and security demands all subjects have these injected.

The other is this idiotic 'code of responsibility' Bergen Community College demands of all students. Years ago, I heard someone on a radio show say something idiotic and then claim that the criticism of it was 'censorship'. Kids were in the truck with me and I explained that this is the United States, and that means two things:
I have the right to say what I think about what you say, it's freedom of speech, not censorship.
I have to acknowledge your right to speak your piece; that does not mean I have to respect you or your views.
Somebody needs to remind this campus idiotPresident Ryan of those things.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Finish the draw! Modified

When you're practicing drawing your sidearm, there's a natural inclination, when you bobble the grip or pull or whatever, to stop, holster, and try it again.

Stop that.

Finish the draw. No matter how badly you mess it up, finish the draw. If things go to hell and you grab, you get no chance to do it over, so get used to correcting as you go. If your grip isn't perfect, if your draw isn't quite right, if your shirt or jacket gets in the way, whether you're using a pocket carry or belt or in-the-waistband holster or shoulder rig or whatever, finish the draw. Fix it as you go, every time.

If you ever need it for real, pretty doesn't matter, perfect doesn't matter: getting the sidearm out, aimed and speaking accurately does. So get used to things going wrong. Finish the draw, every time.

In the comments Panday said something very, very true: As the old saying goes, "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast".

Oh, yeah. I should have specified in the original post, "You start learning this slowly. Reach, get a correct grip, draw, etc.... Once you have the motions down, once you understand what you're doing and how and you start working on speed..." Beginning any new physical activity you start slow.

The most amazing pistol man I've ever personally seen was Capt. Dan Combs of the OHP, who I've mentioned before. Spooky-fast and accurate(with damn near anything). He said that when starting this he began by moving slowly, making sure he had each motion right, and once he had that locked in he began speeding up. The time I saw him he would hold a foam coffee cup on the front lip of his holster, flip it down to the ground and draw & blow it up before it hit. Then, commenting that "Trooper ( ) says that's just luck, so let's try it again," would do it again. Only this time he'd deliberately miss the first shot and blow the cup with the second, still before it hit the ground. And he did this with a S&W Model 19(polished action, no other mods) and a standard-issue Sam Brown belt & holster.

Start slow and get it right. Then, when working on speed and positions, finish the draw.

I hate to say this, but

GodDammit, some of these people need to be horsewhipped. In public. Then have salt thrown on their back.
He said the Special Agent in Charge, Jody Keeku, asked for a re-test and specified that the tests use "soft primered commercial ammunition."

"FTB has no standardized testing procedures, in fact it has no written procedures at all for testing firearms," Savage said. "They had no standard to stick to, and gleefully tried again. The results this time...'a machinegun.' ATF with a self-admitted 50 percent error rate pursued an indictment and Mr. Olofson was charged with 'Unlawful transfer of a machinegun.'. Not possession, not even Robert Kiernicki was charged with possession (who actually possessed the rifle), though the ATF paid Mr. Kiernicki 'an undisclosed amount of money' to testify against Mr. Olofson at trial," Savage said.

"Haanstad claimed the law does not exempt a malfunction. He claims that it states 'any weapon that shoots more than once without manual reloading, per function of the trigger is a machinegun.' To clarify when I was on the stand, I asked him, 'Are you saying if I take my Great Granddaddy's double barrel out and I pull one trigger and both barrels go off, it's a machinegun?' He went back to … 'any weapon that shoots…'" Savage said.

Lawyers and FBI and ATF agents. And we're supposed to TRUST these people? About ANYTHING?

Uncle, you ruined my whole morning when I read this.

Added: I believe a lawyer takes an oath to 'uphold the law' in any state, and I think someone in the Justice Department takes an oath to the same effect: therefore, any lawyer working for the government who acts to prevent a defense attorney from presenting information proving his client innocent of the charged crime should be disbarred. At the least. For a start.

Kim points out

a petition you should check out.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

See if you can spot the conflict of interest

in this.
The Government will launch an overhaul of the system next week, which will put pressure on doctors and nurses to identify more "potential organ donors" from dying patients. Hospitals will be rated for the number of deceased patients they "convert" into donors and doctors will be expected to identify potential donors earlier and alert donor co-ordinators as patients approach death.

But Mr Brown, who carries a donor card, has made it clear he backs an even more radical revamp of the system, which would lead to donation by "presumed consent". The approach is modelled on that of Spain, which has the highest proportion of organ donors in the world.
Yeah, having the authorities assume you wanted to give up your body parts would tend to raise the number of 'donors'.

What, you thought you should have a say in what happens to your parts after you shuffle off this mortal coil? Oh no, silly peasant, WE know better than YOU what should be done.

It admits to a possible "conflict of interest" between medical staff, trying to save lives and those keen to ensure every possible organ is harvested. Dr Kevin Gunning, an intensive care consultant at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, and a member of the UK Transplant's advisory group, said the measures could put doctors and relatives under pressure. "If, as a doctor you have turned your thoughts to your patient being a donor when they are still living, that is a real conflict."
Damn, you think maybe?

Dr Bruce Taylor, of the Intensive Care Society warned that early indicators of death were not reliable. "The only way to be sure is to do all the tests which show brain stem death; anything in advance of that is only a prediction."

But Chris Rudge, of UK Transplant, the authority in charge of organ donation and transplant, insisted patients would not be considered as donors at any point where survival was possible.

Uh huh. Sure. I'm really going to trust that, aren't I?