sufficient to generate seismic waves. Latest example of 'law enforcement' in (fG)Britain,
According to his blog, our over-tall photographer Alex Turner was taking snaps in Chatham High St last Thursday, when he was approached by two unidentified men. They did not identify themselves, but demanded that he show them some ID and warned that if he failed to comply, they would summon police officers to deal with him.
This they did, and a PCSO and WPC quickly joined the fray. Turner took a photo of the pair, and was promptly arrested. It is unclear from his own account precisely what he was being arrested for. However, he does record that the WPC stated she had felt threatened by him when he took her picture, referring to his size - 5' 11" and about 12 stone - and implying that she found it intimidating.
I have no idea about Britain, but I think it's law in most places in the US that if a plain-clothes officer accosts you and you demand ID, they have to provide it.
Turner claims he was handcuffed, held in a police van for around 20 minutes, and forced to provide ID before they would release him. He was then searched in public by plain clothes officers who failed to provide any ID before they did so.
Following his release, he further claims that the police confirmed he was at liberty to take photographs, so long as - according to the PCSO - he did not take any photographs of the police.
If it's not law in Britain, it would at the least be courtesy for someone in plain clothes to show ID before searching you, to prove A: they really are cops and B: therefore have a legal backing of some kind for the search. However, as noted by my title, they seem to have forgotten Sir Robert's Principles completely.
Further down,
This is just the latest in a long line of PR disasters that have dogged police forces over the last 12 months, with tourists, schoolboys and passers-by all subject to arrest for the heinous offence of pursuing their hobby. Each incident is followed by much police hand-wringing, and statements to the effect that these are one-offs: the fault of over-zealous individual officers.
Except that if it keeps happening, it ain't just the 'over-zealous' officer; they're either not getting the word, or they're getting the message that they can keep doing this and get away with it.
The Home Office has issued numerous statements reaffirming the public’s right to take photographs. Last week, the Met issued its own guidelines, which may go some way to explaining why the Police so persistently get it wrong.
You really need to read this to get the full effect of the idiocy involved. I will quote a bit from the response they finally got from Kent police:
"At the time of this incident, a police officer responded to a report concerning a man who was taking photographs of buildings and people in Chatham town centre. When challenged by the police officer the man refused to give any personal details which it was thought was suspicious.
"As a result, he was arrested and asked to wait in a police vehicle while his details were checked. He was released a short time later after these details had been properly verified, and no further action has been taken.
And we're back to, among other things, did the first two ID themselves as police? If not, why the hell not?
I'm now going to post Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Policing(thanks to Lawdog for keeping track of them); see if you can figure out how many these people are violating in the cases listed in the article:
1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5) Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8) Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Two things to point to, one for funny and one for serious
The funny is here, speaking of the attitudes of(in this case one particular) 'Republican pundit' who lost her brain over Sarah Palin:
You're Peggy Noonan and you're jealous. But it's not the normal kind of jealous, the kind reserved for girlfriends who can squeeze into size 2 jeans. No, it's the kind of jealous that hurts, that grabs your gut and twists, that has you howling with rage into your pillow in the middle of the night, screaming "It's not fair" like a two-year-old denied another piece of cake. It is Sarah Palin jealous...and it is consuming you.
...
And, what's worse, everyone continues to talk about her. You've tried everything, using your mainstream media platforms, your Wall Street Journal columns, and powerful friends -- so many of them -- to savage her, to give her a rhetorical beating so fierce that it would bring a smile to the face of Vince McMahon -- if you knew who he is, and if you had ever watched a WWE wrestling match, which he heads. "She is a complete elite confection. She might as well have been a bonbon," you wrote, your $300 manicured fingers shaking on the keyboard.
...
You're Peggy Noonan and you're jealous. You don't understand it. Sure, maybe she has accomplished a few things (like the $26 billion dollar natural gas pipeline deal, restructuring Alaskan government, and taking an ice pick to corrupt politicians). But she has no style, no pizzazz -- she just does stuff. But so do you -- and you can't understand why you don't get the same adoration. After all, didn't you go before the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission and not just protest, but elegantly protest -- so said The New York Times -- a 16-story tower a developer wanted to build in your ritzy Upper East Side Manhattan neighborhood? Sarah Palin wouldn't have done that; she's not brilliant enough to understand preservation. She probably would have looked at the jobs the construction would create and given it a déclassé "Hell yeah!"
Well worth reading, and I hope Noonan hears about it, reads it, and shrieks so high only the dog knows she did it. And runs away.
The serious is that Amazon deleted books from peoples' Kindle readers. No notice, just did it. And what books were they? Nineteen Eighty-Four, Animal Farm and Atlas Shrugged.
I had no idea Amazon could do that, let alone without bothering to tell you "We're going to delete the book you paid for. We'll refund your money, but you can't keep it." And with all the books out there, that it would be these three that are the only faulty file and that book will no longer be available, or the books in question were being sold by Amazon despite being unauthorized copies. In the link at Insty we have
It appears as though Amazon’s purchasing system does this automatically. The company told Ars that they are “changing [Amazon's] systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers’ devices in these circumstances.”
Bravo to that, but it would have been better for Amazon to tell customers of this planned change directly, in the first place. And why was the system designed to reach out and remove books, anyway?
Good question. I'd thought about one of these before, but this pretty much kills it; I don't want some possible censor being able to delete or edit books I've bought.
You're Peggy Noonan and you're jealous. But it's not the normal kind of jealous, the kind reserved for girlfriends who can squeeze into size 2 jeans. No, it's the kind of jealous that hurts, that grabs your gut and twists, that has you howling with rage into your pillow in the middle of the night, screaming "It's not fair" like a two-year-old denied another piece of cake. It is Sarah Palin jealous...and it is consuming you.
...
And, what's worse, everyone continues to talk about her. You've tried everything, using your mainstream media platforms, your Wall Street Journal columns, and powerful friends -- so many of them -- to savage her, to give her a rhetorical beating so fierce that it would bring a smile to the face of Vince McMahon -- if you knew who he is, and if you had ever watched a WWE wrestling match, which he heads. "She is a complete elite confection. She might as well have been a bonbon," you wrote, your $300 manicured fingers shaking on the keyboard.
...
You're Peggy Noonan and you're jealous. You don't understand it. Sure, maybe she has accomplished a few things (like the $26 billion dollar natural gas pipeline deal, restructuring Alaskan government, and taking an ice pick to corrupt politicians). But she has no style, no pizzazz -- she just does stuff. But so do you -- and you can't understand why you don't get the same adoration. After all, didn't you go before the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission and not just protest, but elegantly protest -- so said The New York Times -- a 16-story tower a developer wanted to build in your ritzy Upper East Side Manhattan neighborhood? Sarah Palin wouldn't have done that; she's not brilliant enough to understand preservation. She probably would have looked at the jobs the construction would create and given it a déclassé "Hell yeah!"
Well worth reading, and I hope Noonan hears about it, reads it, and shrieks so high only the dog knows she did it. And runs away.
The serious is that Amazon deleted books from peoples' Kindle readers. No notice, just did it. And what books were they? Nineteen Eighty-Four, Animal Farm and Atlas Shrugged.
I had no idea Amazon could do that, let alone without bothering to tell you "We're going to delete the book you paid for. We'll refund your money, but you can't keep it." And with all the books out there, that it would be these three that are the only faulty file and that book will no longer be available, or the books in question were being sold by Amazon despite being unauthorized copies. In the link at Insty we have
It appears as though Amazon’s purchasing system does this automatically. The company told Ars that they are “changing [Amazon's] systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers’ devices in these circumstances.”
Bravo to that, but it would have been better for Amazon to tell customers of this planned change directly, in the first place. And why was the system designed to reach out and remove books, anyway?
Good question. I'd thought about one of these before, but this pretty much kills it; I don't want some possible censor being able to delete or edit books I've bought.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Took the daughter for her birthday dinner tonight
before she leaves for New Orleans in the morning on vacation. Went to a place called Pop's east of Edmond: restaurant that also makes a lot of different flavors of soda. My chicken-fried steak was good, she said her burger was very good. And dessert... their ice-cream sandwich is a big chocolate chip cookie, about five small scoops of vanilla spaced suitably, another cookie, then hot fudge and whipped cream.
We split the dessert, and you could easily have split it three ways; I'm still stuffed.
Ref her trip, yes, she's planning on great care. No, I'm not thrilled. About a month ago at the range as I was checking out was talking to one of the new people there and mentioned daughter's trip; she looked at me in amazement and said "You're letting her go?" I pointed out she is of age and I didn't have a lot of input; next question: "Does she have a gun?" It seems she used to work with the US Marshalls Service, and the last in-service training she had was in NO; before they got out the first night they received a sheet of warnings: "Do not leave brightly-lit streets; do travel in groups of three or more" and so on. For US Marshalls who they knew would be armed.
Real confidence-inspiring, that.
We split the dessert, and you could easily have split it three ways; I'm still stuffed.
Ref her trip, yes, she's planning on great care. No, I'm not thrilled. About a month ago at the range as I was checking out was talking to one of the new people there and mentioned daughter's trip; she looked at me in amazement and said "You're letting her go?" I pointed out she is of age and I didn't have a lot of input; next question: "Does she have a gun?" It seems she used to work with the US Marshalls Service, and the last in-service training she had was in NO; before they got out the first night they received a sheet of warnings: "Do not leave brightly-lit streets; do travel in groups of three or more" and so on. For US Marshalls who they knew would be armed.
Real confidence-inspiring, that.
Ref the airliner crash in Iran,
Two-Four has this:
Dan Collins links a Reuters item on the Caspian Airlines crash, which includes this helpful information:give us things for loans we won't pay backsell us things we need!" when- again- we were being told "Sanctions don't make sense because EVERYBODY else trades with Nicaragua!"
Can't have it both ways, folks; if 'everybody else' trades with whoever, and they're still in the toilet, either somebody else won't sell them what they need or can't make what they need; not our fault. Or, if other people DO sell them the stuff, and they're in the toilet anyway, you can't blame us.
Dan Collins links a Reuters item on the Caspian Airlines crash, which includes this helpful information:
"U.S. sanctions against Iran have prevented it from buying new aircraft or spares from the West, forcing it to supplement its aging fleet of Boeing and Airbus planes with aircraft from the former Soviet Union."This crap reminds me of Cuba; we're told the sanctions don't make sense because 'Everybody else in the WORLD trades with Cuba!', and yet they also tell us it's our fault the Cuban economy is in the septic tank. Or, in Nicaragua in the 80's, they were constantly threatening us and calling us names, and then bitching because "You won't
Can't have it both ways, folks; if 'everybody else' trades with whoever, and they're still in the toilet, either somebody else won't sell them what they need or can't make what they need; not our fault. Or, if other people DO sell them the stuff, and they're in the toilet anyway, you can't blame us.
Ref another "Oh NO, he was legally carrying a GUN!" case,
Tam covers it quite well:
"My opinion is that members of the public should allow trained professionals to carry and use firearms," Maloney said.I'd be all about some trained professionals, but all we have is you, chief. And you know what they say about you guys: You're never around when I need you. And when I do call you, you've got the rest of my life to get here. I reckon I'll keep lugging my own heater around, thanks."
Having seen the effects of gun use, Maloney thinks citizens should instead be good witnesses if they spot a crime, he said.
A while back I wrote about Bank of America screwing some people
around in disgusting fashion. Final outcome with Bank of America is
...Today my local branch manager called, and begged me to make this go away. She was authorized to offer me a dollar amount that equates to about 30% of what I lost last week in terms of cash laid out. It didn't account for pain and suffering, or any sort of emotional factor. It didn't even cover the new tickets I had to buy for my family's airfare.
I took their offer, simply because I don't think that I could do more without a protracted fight, and what's the point? Every day I deal with this shit is a day closer to my death. I'm not talking big bucks, and I'm not a man who likes to beat his head against a wall simply because it feels good to stop at the end.
Anyhow, the little bit of money that they offered me is enough to keep my wife and boy comfortable for the duration of their wait in Brazil, with enough left over to pay back most of the money I borrowed to cover my shortfalls in the ticket price. So, all's well, sort of.
Probably as well as it could get with these clowns. But I'll tell you three things:
1. There was no excuse for them screwing up the account once, let alone multiple times.
2. There was no excuse for the way he was treated while trying to straighten things out.
3. There is no damn way I'll ever take a card from Bank of America. Or do anything else to put money in their pocket if I can avoid it.
A comment in the original post basically says "He should have set things up better." Maybe so, but that does NOT in any way excuse the actions of Bank of America in this.
...Today my local branch manager called, and begged me to make this go away. She was authorized to offer me a dollar amount that equates to about 30% of what I lost last week in terms of cash laid out. It didn't account for pain and suffering, or any sort of emotional factor. It didn't even cover the new tickets I had to buy for my family's airfare.
I took their offer, simply because I don't think that I could do more without a protracted fight, and what's the point? Every day I deal with this shit is a day closer to my death. I'm not talking big bucks, and I'm not a man who likes to beat his head against a wall simply because it feels good to stop at the end.
Anyhow, the little bit of money that they offered me is enough to keep my wife and boy comfortable for the duration of their wait in Brazil, with enough left over to pay back most of the money I borrowed to cover my shortfalls in the ticket price. So, all's well, sort of.
Probably as well as it could get with these clowns. But I'll tell you three things:
1. There was no excuse for them screwing up the account once, let alone multiple times.
2. There was no excuse for the way he was treated while trying to straighten things out.
3. There is no damn way I'll ever take a card from Bank of America. Or do anything else to put money in their pocket if I can avoid it.
A comment in the original post basically says "He should have set things up better." Maybe so, but that does NOT in any way excuse the actions of Bank of America in this.
Because, of course, only government minions can be
trusted with arms.
In the last article, reader “Alex” commented:
...
I used to agree with “Alex.” Then, during my initial 3+ years of research, I discovered, and corresponded with, Rudy Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii. He has published over 20 books and been published over 100 times in professional journals. His university website addresses the above issue.
Here is a partial list of countries that, in the 20th century, carried out government-sponsored mass murder, termed “democide” by Professor Rudy Rummel: People’s Republic of China (76.7 million murdered); Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (61.9 million); and Nazi Germany (21 million). Other countries listed by Professor Rummel include: Indonesia, Vietnam, Pakistan, and Yugoslavia, et al, resulting in another 13 million murdered by their own governments. Other homicidal countries included Imperial Japan (World War II) and Turkey (1.9 million), who murdered mostly ‘others’ in the name of racial purity and territorial conquest. All told, Rummel estimates that 262 million people were slaughtered by homicidal governments during the 20th Century alone. These numbers are beyond comprehension, as Professor Rummel explains:
He ends with
Don’t like Jews or Catholics? Hitler disarmed them and then murdered millions in concentration camps, along with Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.
Hate Christians? After Uganda banned guns, 300,000 were rounded up and murdered.
Don’t like “smart” people? After banning guns, Cambodia rounded up and murdered over one million of them.
Hate people who disagree with you? After the Soviet Union established gun control, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.
By comparison, the Second Amendment has actually saved millions of lives. It also protects your right to religious freedom, your pursuit of happiness, and your opportunity for upward mobility. It raises the cost for thugs who want you rounded up and murdered.
It also shows that anybody who is against the civil right of self-defense is a person who hates your life, liberty, and happiness.
Why would you want to be disarmed before such a person?
In the last article, reader “Alex” commented:
“Obviously it is time to repeal the second amendment because of all the bloodshed it has caused.”
...
I used to agree with “Alex.” Then, during my initial 3+ years of research, I discovered, and corresponded with, Rudy Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii. He has published over 20 books and been published over 100 times in professional journals. His university website addresses the above issue.
Here is a partial list of countries that, in the 20th century, carried out government-sponsored mass murder, termed “democide” by Professor Rudy Rummel: People’s Republic of China (76.7 million murdered); Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (61.9 million); and Nazi Germany (21 million). Other countries listed by Professor Rummel include: Indonesia, Vietnam, Pakistan, and Yugoslavia, et al, resulting in another 13 million murdered by their own governments. Other homicidal countries included Imperial Japan (World War II) and Turkey (1.9 million), who murdered mostly ‘others’ in the name of racial purity and territorial conquest. All told, Rummel estimates that 262 million people were slaughtered by homicidal governments during the 20th Century alone. These numbers are beyond comprehension, as Professor Rummel explains:
He ends with
Don’t like Jews or Catholics? Hitler disarmed them and then murdered millions in concentration camps, along with Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.
Hate Christians? After Uganda banned guns, 300,000 were rounded up and murdered.
Don’t like “smart” people? After banning guns, Cambodia rounded up and murdered over one million of them.
Hate people who disagree with you? After the Soviet Union established gun control, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.
By comparison, the Second Amendment has actually saved millions of lives. It also protects your right to religious freedom, your pursuit of happiness, and your opportunity for upward mobility. It raises the cost for thugs who want you rounded up and murdered.
It also shows that anybody who is against the civil right of self-defense is a person who hates your life, liberty, and happiness.
Why would you want to be disarmed before such a person?
If your Senator reacts this way to your protest, (updated)
you need to see about replacing her.
Local Tea Party patriots held an anti-Obama Care protest at Senator Claire "ACORN" McCaskill’s district offices on Delmar Boulevard today.
The protest was organized by Americans for Prosperity and the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition.
McCaskill's office manager locked the doors, pull down the blinds, called the cops and forced the protesters across the street.
...
A staff member opened the door for the police and said they were being threatened. The staff member took some notes from a few protesters while the police were there and said she'd pass them on to Senator McCaskill.
Like Insty said, it's not like she's crapping on constituents or somet- oh, wait, yes she is.
Update: you can add Congressweenie Keith Shuler to the list of "Who cares what you peasants think?" politicians:
It is important to note here that we were not “storming the Bastille.” We were not carrying pitchforks, nor did we arrive announced. Our group called ahead well over a week in advance and requested that someone from Shuler’s office receive our petitions and comments. We were informed that they would not accept our petitions and that Shuler would not be there, but that someone would receive us.
Shuler’ assistant stood in the entry to the offices and stated that the Congressman “has no comment.” He said that he would be willing to talk to one or two of us. Several people spontaneously made comments to be relayed the Congressman.
Translation: "The Congressman is busy with important matters, he can't be here to talk to you. And I, his buttmonkey, will not accept your smelly papers for him; they'll contaminate the office." Sounds like Shuler needs to be reminded that he can be thrown out of that office. And should be.
Local Tea Party patriots held an anti-Obama Care protest at Senator Claire "ACORN" McCaskill’s district offices on Delmar Boulevard today.
The protest was organized by Americans for Prosperity and the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition.
McCaskill's office manager locked the doors, pull down the blinds, called the cops and forced the protesters across the street.
...
A staff member opened the door for the police and said they were being threatened. The staff member took some notes from a few protesters while the police were there and said she'd pass them on to Senator McCaskill.
Like Insty said, it's not like she's crapping on constituents or somet- oh, wait, yes she is.
Update: you can add Congressweenie Keith Shuler to the list of "Who cares what you peasants think?" politicians:
It is important to note here that we were not “storming the Bastille.” We were not carrying pitchforks, nor did we arrive announced. Our group called ahead well over a week in advance and requested that someone from Shuler’s office receive our petitions and comments. We were informed that they would not accept our petitions and that Shuler would not be there, but that someone would receive us.
Shuler’ assistant stood in the entry to the offices and stated that the Congressman “has no comment.” He said that he would be willing to talk to one or two of us. Several people spontaneously made comments to be relayed the Congressman.
Translation: "The Congressman is busy with important matters, he can't be here to talk to you. And I, his buttmonkey, will not accept your smelly papers for him; they'll contaminate the office." Sounds like Shuler needs to be reminded that he can be thrown out of that office. And should be.
Magnets: they're not just for Mythbusters and screwing up your disc
One of my 'it makes things easier' is to use magnets for holding things. Specifically, say I've got a pistol I've wiped down with Eezox and I don't want it laying on a cloth or something while it dries. I've got a file cabinet next to the table where I do things like that, so I put the piece muzzle-down on the table and set a magnet on the cabinet where the butt touches
and it'll stay there while the stuff dries. Or penetrating oil soaks in or whatever. You can do this with a rifle or shotgun(minus the stock), though I'll generally use two magnets, one on each side of the receiver or barrel, for that to make it more stable.
I'll throw in, you know those plastic clamps you can pick up at Harbor Freight or wherever on sale? Nice & strong? You can clamp two of them on the table and lean a long gun between them so it can't fall over.
Probably these are methods you're aware of, but just in case.
and it'll stay there while the stuff dries. Or penetrating oil soaks in or whatever. You can do this with a rifle or shotgun(minus the stock), though I'll generally use two magnets, one on each side of the receiver or barrel, for that to make it more stable.I'll throw in, you know those plastic clamps you can pick up at Harbor Freight or wherever on sale? Nice & strong? You can clamp two of them on the table and lean a long gun between them so it can't fall over.
Probably these are methods you're aware of, but just in case.
Two things to read, both connected to oil
Kevin has this on the Bakken Formation having a LOT more recoverable oil than previously thought:
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—
Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.
A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.
From the FAQ,
Read the whole thing; interesting information. Which brings us to a post a while back by Geek with a .45; it starts off with Ron Paul getting his ass kicked in the debates, and really starts here:
The significant reason that Ron Paul got his butt whipped was because his response demonstrated that he did not have an understanding or command of the monstrous, overriding Excruciating Truth that it is rarely uttered aloud.
That so many liberty oriented brethren don’t understand that Ron Paul has fatally screwed up tells me that they don’t grasp Excruciating Truth either.
(Hmmmm….am I a prophet, or a politician? At least I’ll confess confusion on that point. But then again, I’m not in congress, running for president. I’m just a sleepy guy who has to get up for work in the morning.)
------------------------
So, here’s the Excruciating Truth:
Whether America remains free and prosperous will be determined by whoever controls The Lightning; which is some critical portion of war suitable energy resources.
And it damned well better be us.
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—
Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.
A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.
From the FAQ,
Why isn't this information concerning the Bakken Formation on front page news?In other words, "It doesn't fit the agenda."
In April 2008, when the USGS released the assessment of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources of the Bakken Formation, there was a press release which was distributed to the media. The individual media organizations make the decision about what stories to publish. When the USGS assessment was released, news articles were done in several news avenues including the New York Times, the Associated Press, and Oil and Gas Journal.
Read the whole thing; interesting information. Which brings us to a post a while back by Geek with a .45; it starts off with Ron Paul getting his ass kicked in the debates, and really starts here:
The significant reason that Ron Paul got his butt whipped was because his response demonstrated that he did not have an understanding or command of the monstrous, overriding Excruciating Truth that it is rarely uttered aloud.
That so many liberty oriented brethren don’t understand that Ron Paul has fatally screwed up tells me that they don’t grasp Excruciating Truth either.
(Hmmmm….am I a prophet, or a politician? At least I’ll confess confusion on that point. But then again, I’m not in congress, running for president. I’m just a sleepy guy who has to get up for work in the morning.)
------------------------
So, here’s the Excruciating Truth:
Whether America remains free and prosperous will be determined by whoever controls The Lightning; which is some critical portion of war suitable energy resources.
And it damned well better be us.
"They want the farmer to die
and the canary to live."
In recent months, actor and comedian Paul Rodriguez has made known his defection from the Democratic party because of the party's lack of interest in helping drought-stricken farmers like himself in California who have had water denied to them by court order under the Endangered Species Act to save an endangered fish, the delta smelt.
Reality strikes home.
As he recounted that environmentalists compare the delta smelt to the canary in a coal mine, he quipped that environmentalists treat the farmer like the canary. Rodriguez quoted his uncle who used to be a coal miner: "The job of the canary is to, you know, we were digging and we’re looking at the canary, we’re digging and looking, when the canary dies, man, you run the hell out of there! That canary’s job is to die so you live, see?”
He continued: "And that really got to me, and I said, 'They got it wrong. They want the farmer to die and the canary to live.'”
And some of them want the farmers and all the other humans to die.
Rodriguez, the son of Mexican immigrants, also spoke of his late father's admiration for America, and the good fortune one has in just getting to live in this country: "He had a deep love for this country. He was grateful. He told me that he wasn’t going to leave an inheritance for his children. He was going to leave something more important than that. He was going to leave them in a place with ideals, and a place where you can become someone if you really wanted to, you had a shot at it."
An ideal that the Evil Party and linguini-spine Stupid Party members are trying to destroy. Speaking of which,
And in contrast to much of the mainstream media's habit of encouraging Republicans to moderate on social issues, he suggested that the Republican party's conservative positions on issues like abortion and family values would be an advantage in attracting Hispanic voters. Rodriguez: "You need to attract more of me, or else you’d be an endangered species. ... You know, we have so much in common. A lot of the values that this party espouses, we espouse. We believe strongly in family. We believe life is sacred."
Rodriguez lamented as he concluded his speech: "It is tragic that in the most fertile soil that God has ever placed on any corner of this blue marble that we should have a desert where there should be a garden."
And the most Hopey!Changey!!Transparent!!! administration EVAH!!!! reaction?
Rodriguez also appeared on FNC's Hannity show on June 19, and complained that the Obama administration has ignored his pleas for help: "I think that when the Endangered Species Act was put on, they didn't take humans into consideration. ... We tried to get the attention of the administration. Mr. Salazar was gracious enough to fly over our valley but didn't land. I don't know what. There's plenty of places to land, you know, because there's no farming going on. It's pathetic." Video of the interview can be found here.
In recent months, actor and comedian Paul Rodriguez has made known his defection from the Democratic party because of the party's lack of interest in helping drought-stricken farmers like himself in California who have had water denied to them by court order under the Endangered Species Act to save an endangered fish, the delta smelt.
Reality strikes home.
As he recounted that environmentalists compare the delta smelt to the canary in a coal mine, he quipped that environmentalists treat the farmer like the canary. Rodriguez quoted his uncle who used to be a coal miner: "The job of the canary is to, you know, we were digging and we’re looking at the canary, we’re digging and looking, when the canary dies, man, you run the hell out of there! That canary’s job is to die so you live, see?”
He continued: "And that really got to me, and I said, 'They got it wrong. They want the farmer to die and the canary to live.'”
And some of them want the farmers and all the other humans to die.
Rodriguez, the son of Mexican immigrants, also spoke of his late father's admiration for America, and the good fortune one has in just getting to live in this country: "He had a deep love for this country. He was grateful. He told me that he wasn’t going to leave an inheritance for his children. He was going to leave something more important than that. He was going to leave them in a place with ideals, and a place where you can become someone if you really wanted to, you had a shot at it."
An ideal that the Evil Party and linguini-spine Stupid Party members are trying to destroy. Speaking of which,
And in contrast to much of the mainstream media's habit of encouraging Republicans to moderate on social issues, he suggested that the Republican party's conservative positions on issues like abortion and family values would be an advantage in attracting Hispanic voters. Rodriguez: "You need to attract more of me, or else you’d be an endangered species. ... You know, we have so much in common. A lot of the values that this party espouses, we espouse. We believe strongly in family. We believe life is sacred."
Rodriguez lamented as he concluded his speech: "It is tragic that in the most fertile soil that God has ever placed on any corner of this blue marble that we should have a desert where there should be a garden."
And the most Hopey!Changey!!Transparent!!! administration EVAH!!!! reaction?
Rodriguez also appeared on FNC's Hannity show on June 19, and complained that the Obama administration has ignored his pleas for help: "I think that when the Endangered Species Act was put on, they didn't take humans into consideration. ... We tried to get the attention of the administration. Mr. Salazar was gracious enough to fly over our valley but didn't land. I don't know what. There's plenty of places to land, you know, because there's no farming going on. It's pathetic." Video of the interview can be found here.
Remember AG Holder dismissing the charges
on the Black Panthers intimidating voters? He doesn't want to tell the Judiciary Committee why.
The Department of Justice responded to questions from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) in a letter earlier this week. DOJ has agreed to a closed door meeting, to be announced.
The letter does not address the basic question, what facts changed? The letter also attempts to reassure, citing the experience of the decision makers. It raises more questions than it answers.
"The Department voluntarily dismissed (the charges) in the complaint because the facts and the law did not support pursuing those claims...That decision was made after a careful and thorough review of the matter by the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, a career employee with nearly 30 years experience in the Department, including nearly l5 years as the career Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights."
The facts did not support the claims? And does careful and thorough review mean, "we won?"
And don't you just love the 'agreed to a closed-door meeting'? Because he apparently doesn't want the peasants hearing what he has to say?
The Department of Justice responded to questions from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) in a letter earlier this week. DOJ has agreed to a closed door meeting, to be announced.
The letter does not address the basic question, what facts changed? The letter also attempts to reassure, citing the experience of the decision makers. It raises more questions than it answers.
"The Department voluntarily dismissed (the charges) in the complaint because the facts and the law did not support pursuing those claims...That decision was made after a careful and thorough review of the matter by the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, a career employee with nearly 30 years experience in the Department, including nearly l5 years as the career Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights."
The facts did not support the claims? And does careful and thorough review mean, "we won?"
And don't you just love the 'agreed to a closed-door meeting'? Because he apparently doesn't want the peasants hearing what he has to say?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Remember what I said about when it rains
this time of year?
The orange in the center of the blue around Oklahoma City is the severe thunderstorm warning(I can hear thunder approaching), to the east is Excessive Heat Warning and south is Heat Advisory mixed with storms forming.
(Note: when I posted this, it showed the colors in the preview; but they apparently didn't actually post)
So I think I'm going to shut the pc down for a while.
The orange in the center of the blue around Oklahoma City is the severe thunderstorm warning(I can hear thunder approaching), to the east is Excessive Heat Warning and south is Heat Advisory mixed with storms forming.
(Note: when I posted this, it showed the colors in the preview; but they apparently didn't actually post)
So I think I'm going to shut the pc down for a while.
Idiot And Bigoted Politicians On Parade
Bigoted, first, Sen. Durbin(Slanderer of Troops-IL):
"When we asked questions of the white male nominees of a Republican president, we were basically trying to ... make sure that they would go far enough in understanding the plight of minorities, because clearly that was not in their DNA," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said.
I wonder if that includes the nominee to the Supreme Court Democrats trashed BECAUSE he was latino?
And from Closing Velocity we have Colin Powell discovering that sucking up to The Obama just might have been a mistake:
Obama ally Colin Powell asserts that the United States' national interest trumps Russia's demands:
In sharp contrast to his positive words during President Barack Obama's visit to Moscow earlier this week when the two reached broad agreement on nuclear arms cuts, Mr Medvedev used a news conference at the G8 summit to return to Russia's earlier tough rhetoric on arms control.
Referring to an order he gave earlier this year to prepare deployment of short-range Russian missiles in the western enclave of Kaliningrad to answer to any US deployment of a missile shield in central Europe, Medvedev said:
"If we don't manage to agree on the issues, you know the consequences. What I said during my state of the nation address has not been revoked."
...
Mr Medvedev, speaking at the G8, also appeared to change his tone on the missile defence shield itself.
During Mr Obama's visit he told the US leader, using markedly softer language than normal, that "no one is saying that missile defence is harmful in itself or that it poses a threat to someone".
But in Italy on Friday, Mr Medvedev returned to the Kremlin's traditional posture on the system, describing it as "harmful" and "threatening to Russia".
With this comment from Krauthammer:
"When we asked questions of the white male nominees of a Republican president, we were basically trying to ... make sure that they would go far enough in understanding the plight of minorities, because clearly that was not in their DNA," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said.
I wonder if that includes the nominee to the Supreme Court Democrats trashed BECAUSE he was latino?
And from Closing Velocity we have Colin Powell discovering that sucking up to The Obama just might have been a mistake:
Obama ally Colin Powell asserts that the United States' national interest trumps Russia's demands:
Russia's foreign minister said that progress would be jeopardized if the U.S. decides to create a global missile defense system. But Powell says Russia "can't have veto power over what we think is needed."
That's certainly a far cry from what Powell said about Russian objections to our missile defense when we were preparing to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in 2001:
Powell is sympathetic to [the Russians'] anxieties.
Which is followed byIn sharp contrast to his positive words during President Barack Obama's visit to Moscow earlier this week when the two reached broad agreement on nuclear arms cuts, Mr Medvedev used a news conference at the G8 summit to return to Russia's earlier tough rhetoric on arms control.
Referring to an order he gave earlier this year to prepare deployment of short-range Russian missiles in the western enclave of Kaliningrad to answer to any US deployment of a missile shield in central Europe, Medvedev said:
"If we don't manage to agree on the issues, you know the consequences. What I said during my state of the nation address has not been revoked."
...
Mr Medvedev, speaking at the G8, also appeared to change his tone on the missile defence shield itself.
During Mr Obama's visit he told the US leader, using markedly softer language than normal, that "no one is saying that missile defence is harmful in itself or that it poses a threat to someone".
But in Italy on Friday, Mr Medvedev returned to the Kremlin's traditional posture on the system, describing it as "harmful" and "threatening to Russia".
With this comment from Krauthammer:
Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs.
That a man of Obama’s intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers —- the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) —- induced the curtailment of anyone’s programs.
Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.
If you want to see Sen. Boxer(Brain Dead-CA) getting her comuppance,
go here and watch. Absolutely wonderful.
Added: Fausta linked to a transcript:
“Madam chair, that is condescending to me,” Alford said. “I’m the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and you’re trying to put up some other black group to pit against me.”
Boxer defended including the report, however, saying the report reflects a “diversity” of support behind climate change legislation facing the Senate.
“If this gentleman were here, he would be proud he’s being quoted,” Boxer said in defense of the NAACP support.
Alford, however, struck back against Boxer, accusing her of “getting racial” in the climate change debate.
“All that’s condescending, and I don’t like it. It’s racial. I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that,” he said. “You’re quoting some other black man — why don’t you quote some other Asian or some other… You’re getting racial here.”
“You’re speaking on behalf of the black community?” Alford asked. “Why are you doing the colored people association’s study with the black Chamber of Commerce?”
He finally concluded:
“We’ve been looking at energy policy since 1996. And we are referring to the experts, regardless of their color. And for someone to tell me, an African-American, college-education veteran of the United States Army, that I must contend with some other “black group” and put aside everything else in here — This has NOTHING to do with the NAACP, and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Commerce. We’re talking about energy. And that — that road the chair went down, I think is God awful.”
Added: Fausta linked to a transcript:
“Madam chair, that is condescending to me,” Alford said. “I’m the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and you’re trying to put up some other black group to pit against me.”
Boxer defended including the report, however, saying the report reflects a “diversity” of support behind climate change legislation facing the Senate.
“If this gentleman were here, he would be proud he’s being quoted,” Boxer said in defense of the NAACP support.
Alford, however, struck back against Boxer, accusing her of “getting racial” in the climate change debate.
“All that’s condescending, and I don’t like it. It’s racial. I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that,” he said. “You’re quoting some other black man — why don’t you quote some other Asian or some other… You’re getting racial here.”
“You’re speaking on behalf of the black community?” Alford asked. “Why are you doing the colored people association’s study with the black Chamber of Commerce?”
He finally concluded:
“We’ve been looking at energy policy since 1996. And we are referring to the experts, regardless of their color. And for someone to tell me, an African-American, college-education veteran of the United States Army, that I must contend with some other “black group” and put aside everything else in here — This has NOTHING to do with the NAACP, and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Commerce. We’re talking about energy. And that — that road the chair went down, I think is God awful.”
A little more on 'Blue Dog Democrats'
like Dan Boren(Evil Party-OK). Who likes to claim he's conservative. Except he voted with Obama 81% of the time, which kind of undercuts his claim. I've mentioned this guy before, in connection with his votes, which seem to cover what Gateway Pundit says: Remember: There is no such a thing as a blue-dog democrat-- But certain liberals do vote occasionally with the GOP to stay in power. In connection with which he points out
Rep. Dan Boren, a conservative Democrat in the reddest state in America, Oklahoma, says in the bluntest terms imaginable that President Obama has become a political liability:
If you're from Oklahoma, and you want to know what the liberal view of the state is, go to the linked Politico post and read the comments; 'racist' and 'stupid' are about the kindest things said from some of the lefties. Oh, and the ONLY reason anybody here voted against Obama was(what else?) that we're all racists. Etc.
I tend to think Gateway is right; for most of these Blue Dogs they're getting some cover to protect themselves back home, and if it comes to it they'll probably vote for what Pelosi tells them to. I hope that's wrong, but...
Rep. Dan Boren, a conservative Democrat in the reddest state in America, Oklahoma, says in the bluntest terms imaginable that President Obama has become a political liability:
“Barack Obama is very unpopular,” said Boren, who represents Oklahoma’s 2nd Congressional District. “He got 34 percent of the vote statewide, and less in our district. If he were to run for re-election today, I bet it would be even worse.”
Boren points out that he does support some of Obama’s initiatives, like the economic stimulus package. He has voted for Obama-supported bills 81 percent of the time, according to a recent Congressional Quarterly study. But despite this, he said the president is too liberal.
If you're from Oklahoma, and you want to know what the liberal view of the state is, go to the linked Politico post and read the comments; 'racist' and 'stupid' are about the kindest things said from some of the lefties. Oh, and the ONLY reason anybody here voted against Obama was(what else?) that we're all racists. Etc.
I tend to think Gateway is right; for most of these Blue Dogs they're getting some cover to protect themselves back home, and if it comes to it they'll probably vote for what Pelosi tells them to. I hope that's wrong, but...
A Representative's salary is how much a year?
Embattled House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, facing a multi-pronged investigation by the House ethics committee, shelled out nearly $280,000 to four different law firms over the last quarter, according to his newest campaign disclosure report.
Overall, Rangel has paid $928,000 to his attorneys during the last year as his personal finances have come under scrutiny on a variety of fronts.
But he can cover it;
But despite his ethics troubles, Rangel remains a prolific fundraiser, raising nearly $405,000 in the period from April 1 to June 30, according to the latest report filed with the Federal Election Commission.
More than half that total - nearly $236,000 - came in the form of PAC contributions from corporations, trade associations and labor unions, including AFSCME, Boeing, General Electric, Pepsico, Raytheon, and UPS.
Rangel still has more than $831,000 in cash in his campaign account as of June 30. Federal election law allows lawmakers to use campaign funds to pay their legal bills if they stem from an investigation related to their official duties.
Overall, Rangel has paid $928,000 to his attorneys during the last year as his personal finances have come under scrutiny on a variety of fronts.
But he can cover it;
But despite his ethics troubles, Rangel remains a prolific fundraiser, raising nearly $405,000 in the period from April 1 to June 30, according to the latest report filed with the Federal Election Commission.
More than half that total - nearly $236,000 - came in the form of PAC contributions from corporations, trade associations and labor unions, including AFSCME, Boeing, General Electric, Pepsico, Raytheon, and UPS.
Rangel still has more than $831,000 in cash in his campaign account as of June 30. Federal election law allows lawmakers to use campaign funds to pay their legal bills if they stem from an investigation related to their official duties.
More touching on the "All my professors are Democrats" post
a few days ago. This from Volokh on LA City College trashing freedom of speech:
The case stems from the incident in which a professor in a speech class refused to grade a student's presentation, apparently because of the religious nature of the student's presentation, the student's expression of opposition for same-sex marriage in the presentation, or both. (The professor apparently also called the student a "fascist bastard" in front of the class for having supported the anti-same-sex-marriage Prop. 8, and refused to let the student finish the presentation.)
Ah, yes, the tolerance of opposing ideas so anchored in current college attitudes. Does anyone think the professor, had they been conservative and made comparable insult to someone pushing same-sex marriage, would still be at the university?
Tolerance: a one-way street too much of the time in schools. And parents and students are paying how much a year for this crap?
The case stems from the incident in which a professor in a speech class refused to grade a student's presentation, apparently because of the religious nature of the student's presentation, the student's expression of opposition for same-sex marriage in the presentation, or both. (The professor apparently also called the student a "fascist bastard" in front of the class for having supported the anti-same-sex-marriage Prop. 8, and refused to let the student finish the presentation.)
Ah, yes, the tolerance of opposing ideas so anchored in current college attitudes. Does anyone think the professor, had they been conservative and made comparable insult to someone pushing same-sex marriage, would still be at the university?
Tolerance: a one-way street too much of the time in schools. And parents and students are paying how much a year for this crap?
I guess for a lot of them Blue Dog Democrat means
"Kick me and pee on me, but if you scratch my ears enough to stay in office I'll pee all over the people back home for you."
Pelosi cut deal after deal with individual lawmakers to squeak the bill out of committee and to the floor. Then lawmakers flew home and had to battle criticism from voters at the same time Republicans were saying Democrats passed an “energy tax.”
“They went home and got beat up about energy,” said a senior aide to a Blue Dog lawmaker. “Now you’re going to jam healthcare down their throat and send them home for a month?”
One of the goals of having the seven Blue Dog members band together is to guard against leadership picking centrists off one by one with side deals, as they feel was done during the energy vote.
Translation: "We'll do what you want, but if you do it this way we have to listen to the hicks back home yell at us, and we don't like that."
But defections could be hard for Republicans to come by. As difficult as the climate change vote was, Republicans were unsuccessful in getting enough Democrats to block the bill.
And what many Republicans oppose outright, Democratic centrists oppose in degree. For example, Republicans object to a government-run “public option.” Many Blue Dogs have come to accept that it will be part of the bill, but don’t want it to use reimbursement rates from Medicare that they believe shortchange their rural areas.
"We won't stop the bill, but we want you to buy us off properly, dammit!" They know what a mess this garbage is, but they won't stand against it; they'll stand against enough to get their ears scratched, and then roll over.
Pelosi cut deal after deal with individual lawmakers to squeak the bill out of committee and to the floor. Then lawmakers flew home and had to battle criticism from voters at the same time Republicans were saying Democrats passed an “energy tax.”
“They went home and got beat up about energy,” said a senior aide to a Blue Dog lawmaker. “Now you’re going to jam healthcare down their throat and send them home for a month?”
One of the goals of having the seven Blue Dog members band together is to guard against leadership picking centrists off one by one with side deals, as they feel was done during the energy vote.
Translation: "We'll do what you want, but if you do it this way we have to listen to the hicks back home yell at us, and we don't like that."
But defections could be hard for Republicans to come by. As difficult as the climate change vote was, Republicans were unsuccessful in getting enough Democrats to block the bill.
And what many Republicans oppose outright, Democratic centrists oppose in degree. For example, Republicans object to a government-run “public option.” Many Blue Dogs have come to accept that it will be part of the bill, but don’t want it to use reimbursement rates from Medicare that they believe shortchange their rural areas.
"We won't stop the bill, but we want you to buy us off properly, dammit!" They know what a mess this garbage is, but they won't stand against it; they'll stand against enough to get their ears scratched, and then roll over.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
I've been told New Zealand is a beautiful place that has a lot of nanny-state
GFWs running things; looks like the last part is proven.
As we've seen in the past few days, gun owners need to be aware of local and global threats. This includes being mindful of restrictions imposed by gungrabbers in other countries. Case in point, New Zealand, where:
As we've seen in the past few days, gun owners need to be aware of local and global threats. This includes being mindful of restrictions imposed by gungrabbers in other countries. Case in point, New Zealand, where:
Thousands of gun owners will be affected by a decision to reclassify many weapons as military-style semi-automatics.
The CliffsNotes version: If your previously-designated "sporting configuration" semi-automatic rifle has a pistol grip, it will now be reclassified as a "military-style semi-automatic." The previous A-class license "law-abiding" New Zealanders obtained will no longer be good enough.
Those buying these guns now need to have the tougher E-class endorsed licence, obtain a permit to buy and advise police of the make and model.
Oh, and then there's this:
The change could cost some owners about $1000 for upgrading their licences and safety equipment.
Not to mention this:
Yeah, right. Good one, Tony.[Police superintendent Tony] McLeod said the reclassification was not an attempt to create a firearms registration system by default, but better tracking of these types of weapons may be a result.
This bears watching: FBI agent gone bad, or
ATF setup? First was the report that an FBI agent had been arrested for dealing in guns, some of which had turned up in the hands of Mexican gangs.
Then,
About an hour ago I received a phone call from a friend and trusted source advising me there is much more to this story than has been reported. I immediately posted an update to today's column.
As he says, there's not enough information to think either way; but this'll be one to watch.
Then,
About an hour ago I received a phone call from a friend and trusted source advising me there is much more to this story than has been reported. I immediately posted an update to today's column.
As he says, there's not enough information to think either way; but this'll be one to watch.
I understand- and agree- that police need some protection
from BS lawsuits, but some things they SHOULD be personally liable for. Things like this:
Haley, 22, gave a different account of the events at Thursday's hearing to suppress evidence against Aderinboye. She said she was asleep when her mother woke her up, telling her that police were at the door. An officer immediately barged into her bedroom, and police were all over her house, she testified. She said officers told her had they had found drugs and that she had to sign the consent form or be arrested.
"They told me that my children would be taken away from me," Haley testified. "They told me they had the number for CPS on speed dial."
She testified that she subsequently passed a polygraph exam with flying colors, a point that prosecutors did not dispute.
...
Sundquist, the squad's former supervisor, was moved off the streets this spring after the DA's office released a letter stating that he shouldn't be trusted to testify in court. Durica and another officer were recently transferred back to patrol duties.
The squad, which once numbered about seven officers, is now largely dismantled. The unit came under scrutiny earlier this year after an arrest put a man behind bars for 10 months on what prosecutors say were false charges. A videotape later showed that the accused man was not carrying a bag that contained drugs and a gun as police had alleged.
In March, McDowell threw out the evidence gathered in another search conducted by the squad, finding that the consent for the search had not been voluntary. Prosecutors subsequently dismissed gun and drug charges against Troy Compton, a felon.
In that case, Compton's wife passed a polygraph in which she said officers threatened to take her to jail and to hand over the couple's then-5-year-old son to Child Protective Services unless she signed a form consenting to the search of their Cedar Hill home. The polygraph exam did not come up during that court hearing.
These people lied on sworn statements, lied under oath... bloody awful.
Haley, 22, gave a different account of the events at Thursday's hearing to suppress evidence against Aderinboye. She said she was asleep when her mother woke her up, telling her that police were at the door. An officer immediately barged into her bedroom, and police were all over her house, she testified. She said officers told her had they had found drugs and that she had to sign the consent form or be arrested.
"They told me that my children would be taken away from me," Haley testified. "They told me they had the number for CPS on speed dial."
She testified that she subsequently passed a polygraph exam with flying colors, a point that prosecutors did not dispute.
...
Sundquist, the squad's former supervisor, was moved off the streets this spring after the DA's office released a letter stating that he shouldn't be trusted to testify in court. Durica and another officer were recently transferred back to patrol duties.
The squad, which once numbered about seven officers, is now largely dismantled. The unit came under scrutiny earlier this year after an arrest put a man behind bars for 10 months on what prosecutors say were false charges. A videotape later showed that the accused man was not carrying a bag that contained drugs and a gun as police had alleged.
In March, McDowell threw out the evidence gathered in another search conducted by the squad, finding that the consent for the search had not been voluntary. Prosecutors subsequently dismissed gun and drug charges against Troy Compton, a felon.
In that case, Compton's wife passed a polygraph in which she said officers threatened to take her to jail and to hand over the couple's then-5-year-old son to Child Protective Services unless she signed a form consenting to the search of their Cedar Hill home. The polygraph exam did not come up during that court hearing.
These people lied on sworn statements, lied under oath... bloody awful.
Once again: when the gun banners talk about allowing 'sporting' arms
and purposes, they're working on screwing you.
San Francisco Police Code § 613.10:
In addition to all other requirements and conditions stated in this Article, each license [to sell firearms or ammunition] shall be subject to all of the following conditions, the breach of any of which shall be sufficient cause for revocation of the license by the Chief of Police: ...
(g) The licensee shall not sell, lease or otherwise transfer to any person any ammunition that:
(1) Serves no sporting purpose;
(2) Is designed to expand upon impact and utilize the jacket, shot or materials embedded within the jacket or shot to project or disperse barbs or other objects that are intended to increase the damage to a human body or other target (including, but not limited to, Winchester Black Talon, Speer Gold Dot, Federal Hydra-Shok, Hornady XTP, Eldorado Starfire, Hollow Point Ammunition and Remington Golden Sabre ammunition; or
(3) Is designed to fragment upon impact (including, but not limited to, Black Rhino bullets and Glaser Safety Slugs).
So the ammo the police are issued isn't allowed to the peasants because those On High have decided that self-defense-suitable ammo isn't 'sporting' and shouldn't be allowed.
San Francisco Police Code § 613.10:
In addition to all other requirements and conditions stated in this Article, each license [to sell firearms or ammunition] shall be subject to all of the following conditions, the breach of any of which shall be sufficient cause for revocation of the license by the Chief of Police: ...
(g) The licensee shall not sell, lease or otherwise transfer to any person any ammunition that:
(1) Serves no sporting purpose;
(2) Is designed to expand upon impact and utilize the jacket, shot or materials embedded within the jacket or shot to project or disperse barbs or other objects that are intended to increase the damage to a human body or other target (including, but not limited to, Winchester Black Talon, Speer Gold Dot, Federal Hydra-Shok, Hornady XTP, Eldorado Starfire, Hollow Point Ammunition and Remington Golden Sabre ammunition; or
(3) Is designed to fragment upon impact (including, but not limited to, Black Rhino bullets and Glaser Safety Slugs).
So the ammo the police are issued isn't allowed to the peasants because those On High have decided that self-defense-suitable ammo isn't 'sporting' and shouldn't be allowed.
This answer would make me oppose Sotomayor
no matter what else she had to say. Sen. Coburn(Actual Intelligent Being-OK)* asked her "Do I have the right of self-defense?"
Simple question. And she either couldn't or wouldn't answer it. She hesitated, she delayed, she started talking about 'precedents from court'. He asked "I don't want a legal opinion, I want your personal opinion, do I have the right of self-defense? And she sounded like she either couldn't understand the question- very doubtful- or was afraid to answer it- very likely. She actually said that it was "...an abstract question with no particular meaning to me."
What the HELL is 'abstract' about "Do I have the right of self-defense?" The only reason I can think of for her not to answer is she thinks the answer is "No" and doesn't have the balls or the integrity to answer it. She wants to be the second Latino, and the first Latino woman on the court and she'll fake and fudge and lie to get it. Which means she's got no damn business in ANY court as a judge.
*Yes, I'm still pissed about his vote on the Pork, Payoffs and Bribes Bailout Bill, but overall he's an honest man of actual conservative beliefs.
Simple question. And she either couldn't or wouldn't answer it. She hesitated, she delayed, she started talking about 'precedents from court'. He asked "I don't want a legal opinion, I want your personal opinion, do I have the right of self-defense? And she sounded like she either couldn't understand the question- very doubtful- or was afraid to answer it- very likely. She actually said that it was "...an abstract question with no particular meaning to me."
What the HELL is 'abstract' about "Do I have the right of self-defense?" The only reason I can think of for her not to answer is she thinks the answer is "No" and doesn't have the balls or the integrity to answer it. She wants to be the second Latino, and the first Latino woman on the court and she'll fake and fudge and lie to get it. Which means she's got no damn business in ANY court as a judge.
*Yes, I'm still pissed about his vote on the Pork, Payoffs and Bribes Bailout Bill, but overall he's an honest man of actual conservative beliefs.
A collection of things
Another corruption probe involving Murtha; anybody surprised?
A defense of some of Sotomayor's words that's kind of damning itself, part of it
...There's no denying that Republicans on the committee put Judge Sotomayor in a difficult moral position, and I need not elaborate on their own culpability for doing so. Either Judge Sotomayor had to misrepresent what she knows judges (all judges, conservative and liberal) do in hard cases, or she had to risk defeat. I'm willing to concede that this is not an easy choice, but I nonetheless think that she made a serious mistake...
A: If being questioned about things she's said and done puts her in a 'difficult moral position', that's her damn problem: they're SUPPOSED to question her on these things.
B: He seems to be saying that getting on the Supreme Court is worth 'misrepresenting what she knows', i.e. lying. If she's willing to lie and dissemble this way to get on the court, she's got no business being there.
Sen. Patrick Leahy sucks. Which we already knew, but still.
Trying to head off criticism of a controversial comment, Leahy misquoted Sotomayor’s own words in kicking off the second day of her confirmation hearings. . . .
LEAHY SAID: “You said that, quote, you ‘would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.’”
THE FACTS: If that’s all Sotomayor said, the quote would barely have mattered to opponents of her nomination. The actual quote, delivered in a 2001 speech to law students at the University of California at Berkeley, was: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Leahy’s revision dropped the controversial part of the phrase, the part that has attracted charges of reverse racism.
Either that, or he's just a lying politician who wants his party in charge, no matter what.
You want to see where hate crimes laws and speech codes lead? Read this.
Steacy, for example, used his Nazi membership to write encouraging words to a racist group called B. C. White Pride. He praised them, told them their racist posters were "great" and promised to distribute their literature. Your tax dollars at work.
Other CHRC investigators went further. One praised Nazi leaders ( "I still say [Adrien] Arcand is our man!"); called for Canadian police to discriminate against blacks ( "exactly when will white cops understand that they should stand by THEIR race?!"); and trashed a Jewish youth group ( "if people spent the time building fellow WNs [White Nationalists] up rather than tearing them down we'd be dangerous. Unless your goal is to tear people down in which case go join Hillel or something.")
At least 12 CHRC prosecutions have been tainted by CHRC staff or witnesses using agent provocateur tactics like that. They've even written Nazi shorthand for "Heil Hitler".
Steacy testified that at least seven CHRC staff have access to Nazi membership accounts: Steacy himself, his two personal assistants, investigator Sandy Kozak, lawyer Giacomo Vigna, manager John Chamberlin, and former CHRC investigator and current serial witness and complainant Richard Warman.
By sheer numbers, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has more Nazi members than the tiny Canadian Nazi Party did when it briefly existed in the 1960s.
If real police and prosecutors behaved this way, they would be suspended and any criminal charges tainted by such misconduct would be stayed. Not so at the CHRC, which lacks an internal affairs office or written operational policies. It doesn't even have a code of ethics.
One last thing: it seems the nannies are just so concerned about tobacco that they want the military to ban smoking by troops, even in the friggin' war zone. I think this covers it nicely:
A defense of some of Sotomayor's words that's kind of damning itself, part of it
...There's no denying that Republicans on the committee put Judge Sotomayor in a difficult moral position, and I need not elaborate on their own culpability for doing so. Either Judge Sotomayor had to misrepresent what she knows judges (all judges, conservative and liberal) do in hard cases, or she had to risk defeat. I'm willing to concede that this is not an easy choice, but I nonetheless think that she made a serious mistake...
A: If being questioned about things she's said and done puts her in a 'difficult moral position', that's her damn problem: they're SUPPOSED to question her on these things.
B: He seems to be saying that getting on the Supreme Court is worth 'misrepresenting what she knows', i.e. lying. If she's willing to lie and dissemble this way to get on the court, she's got no business being there.
Sen. Patrick Leahy sucks. Which we already knew, but still.
Trying to head off criticism of a controversial comment, Leahy misquoted Sotomayor’s own words in kicking off the second day of her confirmation hearings. . . .
LEAHY SAID: “You said that, quote, you ‘would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.’”
THE FACTS: If that’s all Sotomayor said, the quote would barely have mattered to opponents of her nomination. The actual quote, delivered in a 2001 speech to law students at the University of California at Berkeley, was: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Leahy’s revision dropped the controversial part of the phrase, the part that has attracted charges of reverse racism.
Either that, or he's just a lying politician who wants his party in charge, no matter what.
You want to see where hate crimes laws and speech codes lead? Read this.
Steacy, for example, used his Nazi membership to write encouraging words to a racist group called B. C. White Pride. He praised them, told them their racist posters were "great" and promised to distribute their literature. Your tax dollars at work.
Other CHRC investigators went further. One praised Nazi leaders ( "I still say [Adrien] Arcand is our man!"); called for Canadian police to discriminate against blacks ( "exactly when will white cops understand that they should stand by THEIR race?!"); and trashed a Jewish youth group ( "if people spent the time building fellow WNs [White Nationalists] up rather than tearing them down we'd be dangerous. Unless your goal is to tear people down in which case go join Hillel or something.")
At least 12 CHRC prosecutions have been tainted by CHRC staff or witnesses using agent provocateur tactics like that. They've even written Nazi shorthand for "Heil Hitler".
Steacy testified that at least seven CHRC staff have access to Nazi membership accounts: Steacy himself, his two personal assistants, investigator Sandy Kozak, lawyer Giacomo Vigna, manager John Chamberlin, and former CHRC investigator and current serial witness and complainant Richard Warman.
By sheer numbers, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has more Nazi members than the tiny Canadian Nazi Party did when it briefly existed in the 1960s.
If real police and prosecutors behaved this way, they would be suspended and any criminal charges tainted by such misconduct would be stayed. Not so at the CHRC, which lacks an internal affairs office or written operational policies. It doesn't even have a code of ethics.
One last thing: it seems the nannies are just so concerned about tobacco that they want the military to ban smoking by troops, even in the friggin' war zone. I think this covers it nicely:
From an Iraqi newspaper: "Thank you, America"
America chose to save us from the most evil party, and the most despicable President in the universe [Saddam]. Meanwhile, the Arab powers stood firmly against the American project. They used all means to thwart them, but Allah’s will had another say in this matter. America turned the Ba’athists into the world’s laughing stock by showing them fleeing in their underwear on live television. Meanwhile, the Arab powers turned those cowards into national heroes on their satellite channels.
America gave the lives of 4,000 of its people to Iraq’s land to instill security and democracy, while the Arabs sent us their filthy mercenaries who mercilessly murdered, bombed, and slaughtered the Iraqi people.
America came bearing democracy for Iraq, while the Arabs brought us the new religion of the Wahhabis and Salafists. This religion aims to destroy Iraq and return it to the days of minority rule.
America canceled all of our debts and urged the rest of the world to do so, while the Arabs refused to do so and they even demanded payment for every Iraqi citizen living in their countries.
America gave the lives of 4,000 of its people to Iraq’s land to instill security and democracy, while the Arabs sent us their filthy mercenaries who mercilessly murdered, bombed, and slaughtered the Iraqi people.
America came bearing democracy for Iraq, while the Arabs brought us the new religion of the Wahhabis and Salafists. This religion aims to destroy Iraq and return it to the days of minority rule.
America canceled all of our debts and urged the rest of the world to do so, while the Arabs refused to do so and they even demanded payment for every Iraqi citizen living in their countries.
So Human Rights Watch- well, what would you call
this?
An on-line Wall Street Journal op-ed posted two days ago alleged that Human Rights Watch officials went trolling for dollars in Saudi Arabia, and that the organization's senior Middle East official, Sarah Leah Whitson, attempted to extract money from potential Saudi donors by bragging about the group's "battles" with the "pro-Israel pressure groups."
This is a serious allegation, and one I found difficult to believe, because Human Rights Watch has always been moderately careful about the optics of its fundraising efforts. The group's credibility, of course, rests on its neutrality; playing traditional enemies off each other as a way to collect money from one (or both) sides in a conflict seems beyond the pale. (Let's put aside for now the queasy-making image of a human rights organization venturing into one of the world's most anti-democratic societies to criticize one of the Middle East's most democratic states.)
There follows his attempts to get a couple of questions answered, one of which got only evasions, until finally
Again, an evasive answer. I wrote back: "That's not what I'm getting at. I'm simply asking the question, did your staff person attempt to raise funds in Saudi Arabia by advertising your organization's opposition to the pro-Israel lobby?"
Roth responded:
An on-line Wall Street Journal op-ed posted two days ago alleged that Human Rights Watch officials went trolling for dollars in Saudi Arabia, and that the organization's senior Middle East official, Sarah Leah Whitson, attempted to extract money from potential Saudi donors by bragging about the group's "battles" with the "pro-Israel pressure groups."
This is a serious allegation, and one I found difficult to believe, because Human Rights Watch has always been moderately careful about the optics of its fundraising efforts. The group's credibility, of course, rests on its neutrality; playing traditional enemies off each other as a way to collect money from one (or both) sides in a conflict seems beyond the pale. (Let's put aside for now the queasy-making image of a human rights organization venturing into one of the world's most anti-democratic societies to criticize one of the Middle East's most democratic states.)
There follows his attempts to get a couple of questions answered, one of which got only evasions, until finally
Again, an evasive answer. I wrote back: "That's not what I'm getting at. I'm simply asking the question, did your staff person attempt to raise funds in Saudi Arabia by advertising your organization's opposition to the pro-Israel lobby?"
Roth responded:
That's certainly part of the story. We report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception. It wasn't a pitch against the Israel lobby per se. Our standard spiel is to describe our work in the region. Telling the Israel story--part of that pitch--is in part telling about the lies and obfuscation that are inevitably thrown our way.In other words, yes, the director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division is attempting to raise funds from Saudis, including a member of the Shura Council (which oversees, on behalf of the Saudi monarchy, the imposition in the Kingdom of the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law) in part by highlighting her organization's investigations of Israel, and its war with Israel's "supporters," who are liars and deceivers. It appears as if Human Rights Watch, in the pursuit of dollars, has compromised its integrity.
It's been damn hot, which reminds me of something;
I haven't ranted on the enviroweenies lately. Let's take care of that, shall we?
When I say 'hot', I mean daytime highs in Oklahoma ranging from 100 to, further west, 115. Which means nighttime lows of(if you're lucky) upper 70's to(mostly) 80's. If you live up north, you may never have experienced days like this; think of walking outside like opening the oven door when it's been on, oh, 250 for a while. Except the only way to get out of it is to get in a car with a/c or back into a building; if you stay outside, it keeps feeling like that. You don't have to do anything to start sweating, just stand there; you start actually working, and you literally drip.
Now, this is a bit hot for this area, but not unknown. Right now there's a big high-pressure system parked over western OK, and this time of year that means heat. Add to that days when the humidity goes up due to those south winds and it's not just damn hot and uncomfortable, it's dangerous; it can kill you.
The orange is 'Heat Advisory', the purple is 'Excessive Heat Warning', and they're not kidding.
Which brings me to the point:
Every once in a while we are treated to some moron, usually one who lives way up north or northeast, declaring "We use too much air conditioning" and, as one clown put it "I actually prefer doing without the 'conveniences' of modern life."* To which I say, come on down. Come down here to Oklahoma or Texas or Arizona or Louisiana where it gets hot and humid to these levels, and live a while without the 'convenience' of air conditioning. It sucks. Right now I'm going to borrow some words from Rachel Lucas:
This not being my first blog post, I anticipate Wave B of potential comments. These will be the ones saying: But Rachel! Humans survived tens of thousands of years without electricity and thus without A/C or fans! But Rachel! I personally right now do not have fans or A/C! But Rachel! When we grew up in the 1970s and 80s, we didn’t have A/C either and it got hot and we survived!
Yes and it sucked. I remember spending entire days at age 9 or 10 laying on the floor in a stupor in front of the one fan in our house in Missouri. It was an “attic fan” that was positioned in a doorway to the outside, blowing in. That’s what people did then, we got by, we didn’t die, but it sucked. It was hot and shitty and uncomfortable.
And all those millenia during which humanity survived much worse heat without any powered cooling apparatuses? I bet you your own nuts that if you traveled back in time and asked them, they’d say that it totally sucked.
And if you personally right now don’t have A/C or fans, and the temperature where you are is above the lower 80s, then you have mental or medical problems, or possibly you’re in prison or somewhere else you definitely do not want to be. Or you might be a soldier, in which case, thank you; but the heat sucks, doesn’t it?***
Yes, it does. And it kills people who don't have a/c or fans or can't get to a place that does.
Remember the mess in France a couple of years ago? THOUSANDS of people died in a heat wave**. About a decade ago up in the Detroit area they had some severely(for them) hot days, and again, people died, because they're in the same position as the people in Britain: they rarely need a/c in homes, which means when serious heat moves in...
Well, down here, lots of homes don't have central heat & air but most of them damn sure have window units to put up when it gets hot, because without them summer is, at best, miserable. And I'll add that rain doesn't always help; it can be raining nicely and in the 80's, with enough wind that you can't leave windows open.
I'm still firmly convinced that the people who want to get rid of a/c 'to save Mother Gaia' and such bullshit either
A: Have never had to live without it in places where normal highs get above 80,
B: Are too friggin' stupid to understand what it MEANS to be without it in these conditions, or
C: Want people to die, thus reducing the carbon load on Mother Gaia.
The proper answers to the above are
A: Get your ass down here and find out,
B: Read the friggin' news or come down here and find out,
C: Fuck you, you first.
They're currently saying only 102 today here, and 99 tomorrow so some relief is on the way. And if you don't think those few degrees make a difference, I sort of envy you; may you never have to learn.
*It should be noted that the fool writing that was on a computer connected to the internet, which means he either doesn't consider that a 'convenience', or is flat stupid.
**There were contributing factors of stupidity and callousness; but the basic factor was 'no way to cool off'.
***I can honestly say I didn't laugh at people over there, having learned a long time ago that "When the weather doesn't get this way but rarely, you don't have the stuff to deal with it." In the late 80's Britain had a heat wave, people dying, being hospitalized with heat exhaustion, and I remember pictures in the paper of people- mostly young women- standing in the fountain in Trafalgar Square to cool off. Told the kids that all this was due to highs in the 80's and they looked puzzled and said "What's wrong with them?" Which led to the "Normal highs there in summer are 70's at most", which got the point across.
I'll add, when son went through Basic at Fort Sill in August, they had guys in the battery from Maine and Wisconsin. For two weeks, everywhere the unit went, a truck pulling a water trailer followed them: the water for drinking and cooling off, the truck to carry those who collapsed or were near it. After two weeks, most of them had acclimated fairly well; by three weeks everyone who couldn't take it was out.
When I say 'hot', I mean daytime highs in Oklahoma ranging from 100 to, further west, 115. Which means nighttime lows of(if you're lucky) upper 70's to(mostly) 80's. If you live up north, you may never have experienced days like this; think of walking outside like opening the oven door when it's been on, oh, 250 for a while. Except the only way to get out of it is to get in a car with a/c or back into a building; if you stay outside, it keeps feeling like that. You don't have to do anything to start sweating, just stand there; you start actually working, and you literally drip.
Now, this is a bit hot for this area, but not unknown. Right now there's a big high-pressure system parked over western OK, and this time of year that means heat. Add to that days when the humidity goes up due to those south winds and it's not just damn hot and uncomfortable, it's dangerous; it can kill you.
The orange is 'Heat Advisory', the purple is 'Excessive Heat Warning', and they're not kidding.
Which brings me to the point:
Every once in a while we are treated to some moron, usually one who lives way up north or northeast, declaring "We use too much air conditioning" and, as one clown put it "I actually prefer doing without the 'conveniences' of modern life."* To which I say, come on down. Come down here to Oklahoma or Texas or Arizona or Louisiana where it gets hot and humid to these levels, and live a while without the 'convenience' of air conditioning. It sucks. Right now I'm going to borrow some words from Rachel Lucas:
This not being my first blog post, I anticipate Wave B of potential comments. These will be the ones saying: But Rachel! Humans survived tens of thousands of years without electricity and thus without A/C or fans! But Rachel! I personally right now do not have fans or A/C! But Rachel! When we grew up in the 1970s and 80s, we didn’t have A/C either and it got hot and we survived!
Yes and it sucked. I remember spending entire days at age 9 or 10 laying on the floor in a stupor in front of the one fan in our house in Missouri. It was an “attic fan” that was positioned in a doorway to the outside, blowing in. That’s what people did then, we got by, we didn’t die, but it sucked. It was hot and shitty and uncomfortable.
And all those millenia during which humanity survived much worse heat without any powered cooling apparatuses? I bet you your own nuts that if you traveled back in time and asked them, they’d say that it totally sucked.
And if you personally right now don’t have A/C or fans, and the temperature where you are is above the lower 80s, then you have mental or medical problems, or possibly you’re in prison or somewhere else you definitely do not want to be. Or you might be a soldier, in which case, thank you; but the heat sucks, doesn’t it?***
Yes, it does. And it kills people who don't have a/c or fans or can't get to a place that does.
Remember the mess in France a couple of years ago? THOUSANDS of people died in a heat wave**. About a decade ago up in the Detroit area they had some severely(for them) hot days, and again, people died, because they're in the same position as the people in Britain: they rarely need a/c in homes, which means when serious heat moves in...
Well, down here, lots of homes don't have central heat & air but most of them damn sure have window units to put up when it gets hot, because without them summer is, at best, miserable. And I'll add that rain doesn't always help; it can be raining nicely and in the 80's, with enough wind that you can't leave windows open.
I'm still firmly convinced that the people who want to get rid of a/c 'to save Mother Gaia' and such bullshit either
A: Have never had to live without it in places where normal highs get above 80,
B: Are too friggin' stupid to understand what it MEANS to be without it in these conditions, or
C: Want people to die, thus reducing the carbon load on Mother Gaia.
The proper answers to the above are
A: Get your ass down here and find out,
B: Read the friggin' news or come down here and find out,
C: Fuck you, you first.
They're currently saying only 102 today here, and 99 tomorrow so some relief is on the way. And if you don't think those few degrees make a difference, I sort of envy you; may you never have to learn.
*It should be noted that the fool writing that was on a computer connected to the internet, which means he either doesn't consider that a 'convenience', or is flat stupid.
**There were contributing factors of stupidity and callousness; but the basic factor was 'no way to cool off'.
***I can honestly say I didn't laugh at people over there, having learned a long time ago that "When the weather doesn't get this way but rarely, you don't have the stuff to deal with it." In the late 80's Britain had a heat wave, people dying, being hospitalized with heat exhaustion, and I remember pictures in the paper of people- mostly young women- standing in the fountain in Trafalgar Square to cool off. Told the kids that all this was due to highs in the 80's and they looked puzzled and said "What's wrong with them?" Which led to the "Normal highs there in summer are 70's at most", which got the point across.
I'll add, when son went through Basic at Fort Sill in August, they had guys in the battery from Maine and Wisconsin. For two weeks, everywhere the unit went, a truck pulling a water trailer followed them: the water for drinking and cooling off, the truck to carry those who collapsed or were near it. After two weeks, most of them had acclimated fairly well; by three weeks everyone who couldn't take it was out.
Letter to Sen. Boxer(Evil Party/Dumbass-CA)
Babs:
You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the
term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator." After all, in the military, "ma'am"
is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position.
The general was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank
or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt
organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors,
drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and
other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do
anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense
of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be
continually re-elected.
And it goes on from there
You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the
term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator." After all, in the military, "ma'am"
is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position.
The general was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank
or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt
organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors,
drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and
other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do
anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense
of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be
continually re-elected.
And it goes on from there
Something I have to point out about the Sotomayor hearings
I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? …
Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Who's that from? A liberal law professor.
Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Who's that from? A liberal law professor.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
So ABC is not only the Obama's Whore channel,
it's working for the Food Nazis. Here's the very end of the "ABC, you're full of crap" article:
What you’re seeing in this video is normal physiology at work interpreted as being abnormal by a couple of lipophobic doctors who should (and probably do) know better. It makes for dramatic theater, but their interpretation is nothing but prevarication or ignorance or both.
But had they reported the truth, there would have been no story. Kind of sad, isn’t it.
Go read it. And next time someone starts the "Fat is BAD!" stuff, or "You can trust what you see from the networks", show this to them.
What you’re seeing in this video is normal physiology at work interpreted as being abnormal by a couple of lipophobic doctors who should (and probably do) know better. It makes for dramatic theater, but their interpretation is nothing but prevarication or ignorance or both.
But had they reported the truth, there would have been no story. Kind of sad, isn’t it.
Go read it. And next time someone starts the "Fat is BAD!" stuff, or "You can trust what you see from the networks", show this to them.
Further proof, if needed, that listening to celebrities
is hazardous to your brain cells. And blood pressure.
What IS it with these clowns who depend on getting their stuff out having this glowing thought about 'collective' rights?
What IS it with these clowns who depend on getting their stuff out having this glowing thought about 'collective' rights?
I do push stories about bad SWAT raids, which includes
wrong addresses and where they shouldn't have been used in the first place. Remember the idiot raid in Maryland where they shot the mayor's dogs? One of whom was hiding in a corner? And claimed it was to 'protect' themselves? Well,
Late last month, Berwyn Heights, Maryland Mayor Cheye Calvo took the unusual step of filing a civil rights lawsuit against the police department of his own county. The suit stems from a 2008 SWAT team raid on Calvo's house that resulted in the shooting deaths of his two black Labrador retrievers. In pushing back against the abuse he suffered at the hands of the Prince George's County police department, the mayor is helping expose a more widespread pattern of law enforcement carelessness and callousness throughout the state of Maryland.
...
Calvo also learned just how obstinate and unapologetic police and government officials can be, even (or especially) when they're clearly in the wrong. Prince George's County Police Chief Melvin High actually praised his officers' conduct, insisting that if they had to do it again they'd conduct the Calvo raid the same way. "Our investigators went in and showed both restraint and compassion," he told a local TV station.
Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson told a local newspaper that Calvo would get no apology for the slaying of his dogs. Johnson's puzzling explanation: "Well, I think in America that is the apology, when we’re cleared.... At the end of the day, the investigation showed he was not involved. And that's, you know, a pat on the back for everybody involved, I think."
No, their being cleared proved you did the wrong damn things, you moron; and you SHOULD issue an apology. But that would require a sense of honor and some common sense, which seems in short supply in Maryland among LE personnel.
To give you an idea of just how bad this crap can be, among the people who contacted the mayor to say "No, you're not the only one",
• In August 2007 police raided the home of a Prince George's County couple to serve an outstanding arrest warrant for their son. The parents were handcuffed at gunpoint. Police later learned that the couple's son had already been in police custody for 12 days.
Just what kind of useless excuse for police are these? They never heard of 'record keeping'?
Besides the 'Law Enforcement, Sorry Excuse For' factor, do these people not know or just not care that they're making themselves the enemy of honest people? That they're trashing the inclination to trust them?
Late last month, Berwyn Heights, Maryland Mayor Cheye Calvo took the unusual step of filing a civil rights lawsuit against the police department of his own county. The suit stems from a 2008 SWAT team raid on Calvo's house that resulted in the shooting deaths of his two black Labrador retrievers. In pushing back against the abuse he suffered at the hands of the Prince George's County police department, the mayor is helping expose a more widespread pattern of law enforcement carelessness and callousness throughout the state of Maryland.
...
Calvo also learned just how obstinate and unapologetic police and government officials can be, even (or especially) when they're clearly in the wrong. Prince George's County Police Chief Melvin High actually praised his officers' conduct, insisting that if they had to do it again they'd conduct the Calvo raid the same way. "Our investigators went in and showed both restraint and compassion," he told a local TV station.
Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson told a local newspaper that Calvo would get no apology for the slaying of his dogs. Johnson's puzzling explanation: "Well, I think in America that is the apology, when we’re cleared.... At the end of the day, the investigation showed he was not involved. And that's, you know, a pat on the back for everybody involved, I think."
No, their being cleared proved you did the wrong damn things, you moron; and you SHOULD issue an apology. But that would require a sense of honor and some common sense, which seems in short supply in Maryland among LE personnel.
To give you an idea of just how bad this crap can be, among the people who contacted the mayor to say "No, you're not the only one",
• In August 2007 police raided the home of a Prince George's County couple to serve an outstanding arrest warrant for their son. The parents were handcuffed at gunpoint. Police later learned that the couple's son had already been in police custody for 12 days.
Just what kind of useless excuse for police are these? They never heard of 'record keeping'?
Besides the 'Law Enforcement, Sorry Excuse For' factor, do these people not know or just not care that they're making themselves the enemy of honest people? That they're trashing the inclination to trust them?
Britain's fighting over funding for their armed forces,
with several articles I've seen over the last few days. This one's recent:
When Gordon Brown was presented with four options on how best to boost the British campaign in Helmand, he chose the cheapest, authoritative sources disclosed yesterday.
While the service chiefs and John Hutton, then Defence Secretary, supported the option of sending an extra 2,000 troops to Afghanistan, the Prime Minister opted only to send a 700-strong battalion for a limited period.
With the approval of Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, he announced in April that the 700-strong deployment would boost numbers during the period of the presidential election, set for August 20. Mr Brown’s rejection of the more expensive options was a setback for the military establishment.
The heads of the three Armed Services, the Chief of the Defence Staff and Mr Hutton had all agreed that the British Task Force in Helmand needed 2,000 extra permanent troops to improve conditions in the province. They believed that the success of the mission was at stake and failure to send more troops would undermine the progress that had been made with great loss of life by the British Forces, and let the Taleban off the hook.
“But the Treasury put a total block on spending more money, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was against it, too, so the Prime Minister went for the least expensive option,” one source told The Times.
So they're arguing about 'options'. Well, read this at the end(bold mine):
— Details from the journal of a Welsh Guards platoon commander who died in May after being injured in Afghanistan were published last night.
Lieutenant Mark Evison, 26, wrote: “I have a lack of radios, water, food and medical equipment. This, with manpower, is what these missions lack. It is disgraceful to send a platoon into a very dangerous area with two weeks’ water and food and one team medics’ pack. Injuries will be sustained which I will not be able to treat and deaths will occur which could have been stopped. We are walking on a tightrope and from what it seems here are likely to fall unless drastic measures are undertaken.”
I read this, and I can't really come up with words that cover it. And we've got a bunch of chickenshit politicians here who'd see our troops in the same damn position. Maybe they are talking about it, but if they're not I don't know why a lot of Brits aren't discussing tar, feathers and ropes. Or whatever their local options are.
When Gordon Brown was presented with four options on how best to boost the British campaign in Helmand, he chose the cheapest, authoritative sources disclosed yesterday.
While the service chiefs and John Hutton, then Defence Secretary, supported the option of sending an extra 2,000 troops to Afghanistan, the Prime Minister opted only to send a 700-strong battalion for a limited period.
With the approval of Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, he announced in April that the 700-strong deployment would boost numbers during the period of the presidential election, set for August 20. Mr Brown’s rejection of the more expensive options was a setback for the military establishment.
The heads of the three Armed Services, the Chief of the Defence Staff and Mr Hutton had all agreed that the British Task Force in Helmand needed 2,000 extra permanent troops to improve conditions in the province. They believed that the success of the mission was at stake and failure to send more troops would undermine the progress that had been made with great loss of life by the British Forces, and let the Taleban off the hook.
“But the Treasury put a total block on spending more money, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was against it, too, so the Prime Minister went for the least expensive option,” one source told The Times.
So they're arguing about 'options'. Well, read this at the end(bold mine):
— Details from the journal of a Welsh Guards platoon commander who died in May after being injured in Afghanistan were published last night.
Lieutenant Mark Evison, 26, wrote: “I have a lack of radios, water, food and medical equipment. This, with manpower, is what these missions lack. It is disgraceful to send a platoon into a very dangerous area with two weeks’ water and food and one team medics’ pack. Injuries will be sustained which I will not be able to treat and deaths will occur which could have been stopped. We are walking on a tightrope and from what it seems here are likely to fall unless drastic measures are undertaken.”
I read this, and I can't really come up with words that cover it. And we've got a bunch of chickenshit politicians here who'd see our troops in the same damn position. Maybe they are talking about it, but if they're not I don't know why a lot of Brits aren't discussing tar, feathers and ropes. Or whatever their local options are.
I'm waiting for Algore to blame Global Warming
Daughter ran across this headline:
Monster fish killed after terrorising swimmers at Swiss lake - and served for dinner
The perch, which was two feet three inches long and weighed 17.5 pounds, was speared on Sunday at Lac Majeur after it bit six swimmers over the weekend, Fabio Croci, a fish warden, told local media.
That does sound like a good-sized perch, but 'monster'?
Two swimmers were treated in hospital for bite wounds up to four inches long after being attacked at the lake, which borders Italy, he added.
That's a nasty bite, no question. Ah, but the nasty little bugger paid the price:
Police divers at first tried to capture the carnivorous fish with a net, but when this failed, they pursued the zander with a harpoon and managed to kill it.
The meat from the captured fish was later served up to tourists at the lake.
Monster fish killed after terrorising swimmers at Swiss lake - and served for dinner
The perch, which was two feet three inches long and weighed 17.5 pounds, was speared on Sunday at Lac Majeur after it bit six swimmers over the weekend, Fabio Croci, a fish warden, told local media.
That does sound like a good-sized perch, but 'monster'?
Two swimmers were treated in hospital for bite wounds up to four inches long after being attacked at the lake, which borders Italy, he added.
That's a nasty bite, no question. Ah, but the nasty little bugger paid the price:
Police divers at first tried to capture the carnivorous fish with a net, but when this failed, they pursued the zander with a harpoon and managed to kill it.
The meat from the captured fish was later served up to tourists at the lake.
Once again, someone has decided that 'the people' doesn't mean us peasants;
it means the state:
...But the plain truth is, once and for all, the 2nd amendment has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with an individual's right to own a gun. And never did. There is no Constitutional right to own a gun.And there never was.
...
The 2nd amendment is about giving the states an absolute right to have their own armed militias which today has been transformed into the National Guard.It also guarantees that the states have the right to have the same weapons as a federal army, a right in existence today and has always been, since the National Guard of every state does have most of the same weapons that the Federal army has.
...
For those who don't know there are two types of rights enumerated in the Constitution, states rights and individual rights. As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state's right they used the term "the people:". When they were referring to an individual right, they used the word " person".The 5th amendment is a good example. It begins with the words, "No person shall..." and lays out guarantees, among them, double jeopardy and that no person in a criminal case shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
So, again, we're supposed to believe that in the Bill of Rights the framers, in the middle of a document speaking specifically of the rights of free people, decided to throw in "Oh, and the states can have a militia with arms." Yeah. Right.
And we're supposed to believe that the National Guard, a federally-controlled branch of the regular military, is that militia. Uh huh.
And that every time the framers used 'the people' they only meant the states. Let's see, so the 1st(the right of the people) doesn't mean any personal freedom of speech, only freedom for the State; So that 4th(the right of the people) part about being secure in your home doesn't mean YOU, it means the STATE; I guess he'll let the 6th actually be about individuals since it says 'the accused'; the 7th doesn't mention 'person' or 'accused', so I'm guessing that one's actually for the State as well; the 8th doesn't use either term, so... ; the 9th(retained by the people) so that's State only, as well as the 10th(or to the people).
So, according to this guy, looks like most of the original ten Amendments, written by a people extremely concerned with protecting the freedom of the individual from government intrusion, were actually written only to protect the STATES from the feds, and do nothing for individuals.
Bullshit.
From a clapped-out bull.
Kevin has challenged this clown to debate the matter; we'll see if he does.
...But the plain truth is, once and for all, the 2nd amendment has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with an individual's right to own a gun. And never did. There is no Constitutional right to own a gun.And there never was.
...
The 2nd amendment is about giving the states an absolute right to have their own armed militias which today has been transformed into the National Guard.It also guarantees that the states have the right to have the same weapons as a federal army, a right in existence today and has always been, since the National Guard of every state does have most of the same weapons that the Federal army has.
...
For those who don't know there are two types of rights enumerated in the Constitution, states rights and individual rights. As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state's right they used the term "the people:". When they were referring to an individual right, they used the word " person".The 5th amendment is a good example. It begins with the words, "No person shall..." and lays out guarantees, among them, double jeopardy and that no person in a criminal case shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
So, again, we're supposed to believe that in the Bill of Rights the framers, in the middle of a document speaking specifically of the rights of free people, decided to throw in "Oh, and the states can have a militia with arms." Yeah. Right.
And we're supposed to believe that the National Guard, a federally-controlled branch of the regular military, is that militia. Uh huh.
And that every time the framers used 'the people' they only meant the states. Let's see, so the 1st(the right of the people) doesn't mean any personal freedom of speech, only freedom for the State; So that 4th(the right of the people) part about being secure in your home doesn't mean YOU, it means the STATE; I guess he'll let the 6th actually be about individuals since it says 'the accused'; the 7th doesn't mention 'person' or 'accused', so I'm guessing that one's actually for the State as well; the 8th doesn't use either term, so... ; the 9th(retained by the people) so that's State only, as well as the 10th(or to the people).
So, according to this guy, looks like most of the original ten Amendments, written by a people extremely concerned with protecting the freedom of the individual from government intrusion, were actually written only to protect the STATES from the feds, and do nothing for individuals.
Bullshit.
From a clapped-out bull.
Kevin has challenged this clown to debate the matter; we'll see if he does.
Racist laws in Britain become even more racist
in order to 'prevent' racists from becoming meaner. Or something.
London: In a bid to stop Muslim extremists from becoming more militant, the UK Government is set to issue a guideline for police, directing them not to charge them in many hate crime cases, a move that has created outrage amongst critics.
Guidelines will tell forces to press for conviction only in cases of clear-cut criminal acts, and refrain from proceeding when evidence of lawbreaking is “borderline.”
Officers will be advised to turn a blind eye on crimes such as incitement to religious hatred or viewing extremist material on the Internet.
So politically-correct racists will get extra space. Wonderful.
Critics, however, saw the move as a politically correct attempt to appease extremists who hate Britain, and warned that the move could mean Islamic radicals being give the freedom to encourage violence.
“This sounds like abject surrender. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. They should all face the same risk of prosecution. There should be no special favours or treatment for any section of the community,” Tory MP David Davies said.
It IS surrender, and you're going to pay the price. You know it, but the excuse is
The move follows an updated Home Office counter-terrorism strategy announced earlier this year.
A Home Office spokesman said: “Preventing people becoming radicalised is a key priority for the Government. The police response needs to be proportionate to deal with crimes people commit while reducing the risk to public safety.”
So letting muslims commit hate crimes will, what, keep them from committing more hate crimes? Why? Since they won't pay a price.
I think the idea of hate crimes is idiotic: assault is assault, murder is murder, prosecute the crime and stop playing mind-reading games. But if you're going to have the damn things, THEY HAVE TO APPLY TO EVERYONE, or they're just a form of official racism.
London: In a bid to stop Muslim extremists from becoming more militant, the UK Government is set to issue a guideline for police, directing them not to charge them in many hate crime cases, a move that has created outrage amongst critics.
Guidelines will tell forces to press for conviction only in cases of clear-cut criminal acts, and refrain from proceeding when evidence of lawbreaking is “borderline.”
Officers will be advised to turn a blind eye on crimes such as incitement to religious hatred or viewing extremist material on the Internet.
So politically-correct racists will get extra space. Wonderful.
Critics, however, saw the move as a politically correct attempt to appease extremists who hate Britain, and warned that the move could mean Islamic radicals being give the freedom to encourage violence.
“This sounds like abject surrender. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. They should all face the same risk of prosecution. There should be no special favours or treatment for any section of the community,” Tory MP David Davies said.
It IS surrender, and you're going to pay the price. You know it, but the excuse is
The move follows an updated Home Office counter-terrorism strategy announced earlier this year.
A Home Office spokesman said: “Preventing people becoming radicalised is a key priority for the Government. The police response needs to be proportionate to deal with crimes people commit while reducing the risk to public safety.”
So letting muslims commit hate crimes will, what, keep them from committing more hate crimes? Why? Since they won't pay a price.
I think the idea of hate crimes is idiotic: assault is assault, murder is murder, prosecute the crime and stop playing mind-reading games. But if you're going to have the damn things, THEY HAVE TO APPLY TO EVERYONE, or they're just a form of official racism.
Further on the 'Trash an ally, it might help the enemy'
attitude the Obama Administration seems to delight in,
Obama told CNN in an interview that aired Sunday that he doesn't know what how the U.S.-allied Northern Alliance behaved in November 2001, but he wants a full accounting before deciding how to move forward.
"I think that, you know, there are responsibilities that all nations have even in war," Obama said during an interview at the end of a six-day trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana.
Just effing wonderful, isn't it?
Keep in mind this was before the Afghan government as presently constituted even existed. At that time we were partnering special operations troops with local resistance fighters to take on the Taliban. Remember the Green Berets on horseback?
Follow the link to Blackfive for more from "DEEBOW", who served as an embed trainer with the Afghan Army, for an idea what special forces face when dealing with local Afghan fighters. Their rules and ours simply aren't the same.
You just about HAVE to figure one of two things:
Obama actually wants to screw anyone who works with us, or
Obama is so worried about properly sucking up to the anti-war weenies, that he'll screw over allies at critical times to do it.
Either way, he's an effing moron to say and do things like this. Speaking of which, a bunch of people have linked to Liz Cheney tearing The Obama a new one for his revision of the end of the Cold War:
It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.
Mr. Obama's method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.
...Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, "I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not so much.
The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism -- Obama exceptionalism. "We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand," one Obama handler has said. What they don't seem to realize is that once you're president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.
Obama told CNN in an interview that aired Sunday that he doesn't know what how the U.S.-allied Northern Alliance behaved in November 2001, but he wants a full accounting before deciding how to move forward.
"I think that, you know, there are responsibilities that all nations have even in war," Obama said during an interview at the end of a six-day trip to Russia, Italy and Ghana.
Just effing wonderful, isn't it?
Keep in mind this was before the Afghan government as presently constituted even existed. At that time we were partnering special operations troops with local resistance fighters to take on the Taliban. Remember the Green Berets on horseback?
Follow the link to Blackfive for more from "DEEBOW", who served as an embed trainer with the Afghan Army, for an idea what special forces face when dealing with local Afghan fighters. Their rules and ours simply aren't the same.
You just about HAVE to figure one of two things:
Obama actually wants to screw anyone who works with us, or
Obama is so worried about properly sucking up to the anti-war weenies, that he'll screw over allies at critical times to do it.
Either way, he's an effing moron to say and do things like this. Speaking of which, a bunch of people have linked to Liz Cheney tearing The Obama a new one for his revision of the end of the Cold War:
It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.
Mr. Obama's method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.
...Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, "I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not so much.
The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism -- Obama exceptionalism. "We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand," one Obama handler has said. What they don't seem to realize is that once you're president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.
From Fausta's current stuff on Honduras,
Interim Honduran leader Roberto Micheletti says the country’s ousted President Manuel Zelaya may get an amnesty if he agrees to face justice at home.
Mr. Micheletti told the Reuters news agency in an interview Sunday Mr. Zelaya would have to appear before Honduran authorities “peacefully” to receive an amnesty. But the interim president again ruled out the possibility of Mr. Zelaya regaining his post as he demands.
Translation: you can show up and be tried, but you'll be tried as 'the prisoner', not as 'President', because you're not and WILL NOT BE that ever again."
And, covering why the Legislature and Supreme Court had to act,
Honduras is facing something that has happened before, in many times and many places. But to recognize what’s been occurring there and what it signifies, one must know something about history, most particularly about how such power grabs occur. Then the patterns become clear.
I’ve written about those patterns before, here and here. If you go back and read both of those pieces—the first is about Chavez and Venezuela, the second is more general—you’ll see how very relevant they are to what Zeleya has been trying to do in Honduras (and see this for the very best summary I’ve seen so far of that situation).
The way is clear: tyrants very often use “democracy” as an excuse to get the people to override a constitution and grant them what turns out to be dictatorial, or near-dictatorial, powers, as well as the ability to extend or abolish term limits and stay in power longer than the constitution says (and in many cases indefinitely). Once the rules are changed about term limits, and power is consolidated and the voting apparatus compromised, staying in power is a relatively easy matter, really a trifle.
Most dictators of recent history have gone this route; the path is well worn and the methods tried and true. Zeleya was attempting to follow in the footsteps of compadre Chavez, and the government and people of Honduras knew it.
Obama knows it too, or should know it. So we come down once again to the choice of whether Obama is a fool or a knave. I vote the latter, but the former doesn’t comfort me either.
Mr. Micheletti told the Reuters news agency in an interview Sunday Mr. Zelaya would have to appear before Honduran authorities “peacefully” to receive an amnesty. But the interim president again ruled out the possibility of Mr. Zelaya regaining his post as he demands.
Translation: you can show up and be tried, but you'll be tried as 'the prisoner', not as 'President', because you're not and WILL NOT BE that ever again."
And, covering why the Legislature and Supreme Court had to act,
Honduras is facing something that has happened before, in many times and many places. But to recognize what’s been occurring there and what it signifies, one must know something about history, most particularly about how such power grabs occur. Then the patterns become clear.
I’ve written about those patterns before, here and here. If you go back and read both of those pieces—the first is about Chavez and Venezuela, the second is more general—you’ll see how very relevant they are to what Zeleya has been trying to do in Honduras (and see this for the very best summary I’ve seen so far of that situation).
The way is clear: tyrants very often use “democracy” as an excuse to get the people to override a constitution and grant them what turns out to be dictatorial, or near-dictatorial, powers, as well as the ability to extend or abolish term limits and stay in power longer than the constitution says (and in many cases indefinitely). Once the rules are changed about term limits, and power is consolidated and the voting apparatus compromised, staying in power is a relatively easy matter, really a trifle.
Most dictators of recent history have gone this route; the path is well worn and the methods tried and true. Zeleya was attempting to follow in the footsteps of compadre Chavez, and the government and people of Honduras knew it.
Obama knows it too, or should know it. So we come down once again to the choice of whether Obama is a fool or a knave. I vote the latter, but the former doesn’t comfort me either.
If you're one of the people who's been harassed and threatened
by TSA for not properly acting like a peasant, you'll love this about a possible second 9/11-type strike being stopped:
The FBI immediately cast doubt on questions that the two were part of a terrorist plot or even connected to Alsaif.
“This investigation represents an isolated incident, involving only these two individuals,” the FBI press release following their arrest states.
I don’t know what’s more frightening: the fact that the FBI so readily dismissed the remarkably similar arrests as unconnected, or the fact that in the latter case, the handgun actually made it on board the aircraft and the suspects were only apprehended after another passenger reported them as engaging in suspicious behavior. The aircraft was then turned around and brought back to the gates.
Luckily, the FBI does appear to have common sense and the tone has changed. A spokesperson has said, “We don’t know if there is a connection, but we are checking it out.”
The FBI immediately cast doubt on questions that the two were part of a terrorist plot or even connected to Alsaif.
“This investigation represents an isolated incident, involving only these two individuals,” the FBI press release following their arrest states.
I don’t know what’s more frightening: the fact that the FBI so readily dismissed the remarkably similar arrests as unconnected, or the fact that in the latter case, the handgun actually made it on board the aircraft and the suspects were only apprehended after another passenger reported them as engaging in suspicious behavior. The aircraft was then turned around and brought back to the gates.
Luckily, the FBI does appear to have common sense and the tone has changed. A spokesperson has said, “We don’t know if there is a connection, but we are checking it out.”
Let's start with
All the President's Men: first, from Malkin,
Hmmm. Maybe the SEC investigation is catching up to car czar Steven “Chooch” Rattner. He’s leaving his post to “return to private life.”
Hmmm. Maybe the SEC investigation is catching up to car czar Steven “Chooch” Rattner. He’s leaving his post to “return to private life.”
Reuters has the alert:
Steven Rattner is leaving as the day-to-day head of the U.S. autos task force that oversaw bankruptcy at General Motors Corp and Chrysler Group, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Monday.Steven Rattner is leaving as the day-to-day head of the U.S. autos task force that oversaw bankruptcy at General Motors Corp and Chrysler Group, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Monday.
...
The NYTimes notes that NY Democrat AG Andrew Cuomo’s investigation into Rattner’s former company, the Quandrangle Group, “has intensified in recent weeks.”
Moments in media suckup to The One, with the media weenie getting cut down:
For a Monday morning snort-starter, check out the video via Newsbusters of African journalist Nkepile Mabuse fact-checking anchor Don Lemon over the weekend. Aptly named. Lemon certainly looked like he had swallowed something sour after Mabuse rejected his obsequious suggestion that President Obama’s warm welcome was somehow “unprecedented.”
Golden moment:
Mabuse: “It’s not unprecedented. When President Bush was here, you will remember, in February, there were people who were drumming, there were dances, and President Bush joined some of them.”
He must have just about swallowed his tongue at that.
Let's see, "We're not there yet," one Democratic source on Capitol Hill said last week, when asked about the prospect for hearings on the Obama administration's firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin. Congressional investigators are still conducting interviews in the case, so the question of whether to "pull the trigger" on a full-blown inquiry -- with subpoenas for witnesses to testify under oath at committee hearings -- has yet to be decided.
The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are involved in investigating the Walpin dismissal is, however, highly significant. With Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, bipartisanship is absolutely necessary to getting the truth about the AmeriCorps case, as with the other cases in the smoldering "IG Gate" scandal.
And last, it's not really one of his 'men', but the possible suicide of a faithful teleprompter ought to be noted.
"Nearly all my professors are Democrats"
What I didn't realize is that journalism that examined the dominance of liberal ideas on campus would be addressed with hostility.
A professor who confronted me declared that he was "personally offended" by my column. He railed that his political viewpoints never affected his teaching and suggested that if I wanted a faculty with Republicans I should have attended a university in the South. "If you like conservatism you can certainly attend the University of Texas and you can walk past the statue of Jefferson Davis everyday on your way to class," he wrote in an e-mail.
I was shocked by such a comment, which seemed an attempt to link Republicans with racist orthodoxy. When I wrote back expressing my offense, he neither apologized nor clarified his remarks.
Of course not; it seems to be the standard liberal rating that conservatives and Republicans are at base, automatically, racists and bigots. And questioning that somehow proves it.
Instead, he reiterated them on the record. Was such a brazen expression of partisanship representative of the faculty as a whole? I decided to speak with him in person in the hope of finding common ground.
He was eager to chat, and after five minutes our dialogue bloomed into a lively discussion. As we hammered away at the issue, one of his colleagues with whom he shared an office grew visibly agitated. Then, while I was in mid-sentence, she exploded.
"You think you're so [expletive] cute with your little column," she told me. "I read your piece and all you want is attention. You're just like Bill O'Reilly. You just want to get up on your [expletive] soapbox and have people look at you."
From the disgust with which she attacked me, you would have thought I had advocated Nazism. She quickly grew so emotional that she had to leave the room. But before she departed, she stood over me and screamed.
Can you imagine what it's like to be conservative in your beliefs and stuck in this woman's classes?
A professor who confronted me declared that he was "personally offended" by my column. He railed that his political viewpoints never affected his teaching and suggested that if I wanted a faculty with Republicans I should have attended a university in the South. "If you like conservatism you can certainly attend the University of Texas and you can walk past the statue of Jefferson Davis everyday on your way to class," he wrote in an e-mail.
I was shocked by such a comment, which seemed an attempt to link Republicans with racist orthodoxy. When I wrote back expressing my offense, he neither apologized nor clarified his remarks.
Of course not; it seems to be the standard liberal rating that conservatives and Republicans are at base, automatically, racists and bigots. And questioning that somehow proves it.
Instead, he reiterated them on the record. Was such a brazen expression of partisanship representative of the faculty as a whole? I decided to speak with him in person in the hope of finding common ground.
He was eager to chat, and after five minutes our dialogue bloomed into a lively discussion. As we hammered away at the issue, one of his colleagues with whom he shared an office grew visibly agitated. Then, while I was in mid-sentence, she exploded.
"You think you're so [expletive] cute with your little column," she told me. "I read your piece and all you want is attention. You're just like Bill O'Reilly. You just want to get up on your [expletive] soapbox and have people look at you."
From the disgust with which she attacked me, you would have thought I had advocated Nazism. She quickly grew so emotional that she had to leave the room. But before she departed, she stood over me and screamed.
Can you imagine what it's like to be conservative in your beliefs and stuck in this woman's classes?
Monday, July 13, 2009
Military Quotes
"If the enemy is in range, so are you." -Infantry Journal
"It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed.." -U.S. Air Force Manual
"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons." -General MacArthur
"You, you, and you ... Panic. The rest of you, come with me." -U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sgt.
"Tracers work both ways." -U.S.. Army Ordnance
"Five second fuses only last three seconds." -Infantry Journal
"Any ship can be a minesweeper.. Once."
"Never tell the Platoon Sergeant you have nothing to do." -Unknown Marine Recruit
Clean it, if it's Dirty. Oil it, if it Squeaks. But: Don't Screw with it, if it Works! -USAF Electronic Technician
"If you see a bomb technician running, keep up with him." -USAF - Ammo Troop
"Yea, Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death , I Shall Fear No Evil. For I am at 80,000 Feet and Climbing."
-"You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3." -test pilot Paul F. Crickmore
The rest are here
"It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed.." -U.S. Air Force Manual
"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons." -General MacArthur
"You, you, and you ... Panic. The rest of you, come with me." -U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sgt.
"Tracers work both ways." -U.S.. Army Ordnance
"Five second fuses only last three seconds." -Infantry Journal
"Any ship can be a minesweeper.. Once."
"Never tell the Platoon Sergeant you have nothing to do." -Unknown Marine Recruit
Clean it, if it's Dirty. Oil it, if it Squeaks. But: Don't Screw with it, if it Works! -USAF Electronic Technician
"If you see a bomb technician running, keep up with him." -USAF - Ammo Troop
"Yea, Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death , I Shall Fear No Evil. For I am at 80,000 Feet and Climbing."
-"You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3." -test pilot Paul F. Crickmore
The rest are here
The things you run into
hanging around the gunsmith's shop.
Spent the day at Oren the Gunsmith's place. Little while after I got there a gentleman who'd called earlier- said another had recommended him- showed up with a shotgun. Double-barrel, 12 guage(chambered 2 3/4" shells), beautiful walnut stock and forend, fine checkering, case-hardened receiver. Turns out grandfather had left it in a case in the attic(some of you are going EEEK!) sometime before he died, which was years ago, and until he ran across it a few days ago he'd never known about it. It had a nasty line of rust along the left barrel, and he wanted to ask about work on it.
A little looking showed the bores were spotless, aside from the streak on the barrel and a couple of small splotches on the right barrel there were only a few tiny specks on the rest of it(on the receiver), and the action locked up like a vault door. On the left side of the receiver was 'P Foury - Expert Armurier', and on the right side '70 Rue Lafayette Paris'.
The thing is beautiful, balanced wonderfully. It had a old slip-on recoil pad, so old it cracked when you pulled on the edge. Happily, he'd dusted it with talc(it looked like) before putting it on and the pad had not stuck to the wood; came right off.
The guy wanted to know could the rust be removed("Yes, and while I probably can't get rid of all the pitting I should be able to clean up most of it and reblue"), would it be shootable("Unless something turns up I can't see now, yes." My contribution as I drooled, "As it looks, I'd have no problem shooting it."), and would it be worth restoring("Yes. Even if not for the value of it being your grandfathers, it's a marvelous piece of work well worth cleaning up.") So a rough estimate was given, the man was happy with it, he was promised a more exact estimate when the rust was off and closer examination made, receipt filled out and the man left happy.
I just searched that name, and I can't find a damn thing. Further searching is required.
It's one of the more lovely firearms I've ever had the chance to handle, and I'm anxious to see how it comes out.
Spent the day at Oren the Gunsmith's place. Little while after I got there a gentleman who'd called earlier- said another had recommended him- showed up with a shotgun. Double-barrel, 12 guage(chambered 2 3/4" shells), beautiful walnut stock and forend, fine checkering, case-hardened receiver. Turns out grandfather had left it in a case in the attic(some of you are going EEEK!) sometime before he died, which was years ago, and until he ran across it a few days ago he'd never known about it. It had a nasty line of rust along the left barrel, and he wanted to ask about work on it.
A little looking showed the bores were spotless, aside from the streak on the barrel and a couple of small splotches on the right barrel there were only a few tiny specks on the rest of it(on the receiver), and the action locked up like a vault door. On the left side of the receiver was 'P Foury - Expert Armurier', and on the right side '70 Rue Lafayette Paris'.
The thing is beautiful, balanced wonderfully. It had a old slip-on recoil pad, so old it cracked when you pulled on the edge. Happily, he'd dusted it with talc(it looked like) before putting it on and the pad had not stuck to the wood; came right off.
The guy wanted to know could the rust be removed("Yes, and while I probably can't get rid of all the pitting I should be able to clean up most of it and reblue"), would it be shootable("Unless something turns up I can't see now, yes." My contribution as I drooled, "As it looks, I'd have no problem shooting it."), and would it be worth restoring("Yes. Even if not for the value of it being your grandfathers, it's a marvelous piece of work well worth cleaning up.") So a rough estimate was given, the man was happy with it, he was promised a more exact estimate when the rust was off and closer examination made, receipt filled out and the man left happy.
I just searched that name, and I can't find a damn thing. Further searching is required.
It's one of the more lovely firearms I've ever had the chance to handle, and I'm anxious to see how it comes out.
Roundup morning
"We can't decide if this was a hate crime or not." I mean, it's confusing, just because a whole bunch of black males beat the crap out of a white family and put the father in the hospital while yelling "This is a black world", why would anyone think it's a hate crime? You'll also notice that the news story manages to get all the way through without mentioning the race of the attackers; sounds like they've been taking lessons from some papers in Australia.
Democrat majority leader in House says won't do job or ask others to do it:
Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, is the majority leader in the House of Representatives. At a news conference last week, he was talking about the healthcare overhaul being drafted on Capitol Hill, and a reporter asked whether he would support a pledge committing members of Congress to read the bill before voting on it, and to make the full text of the legislation available to the public online for 72 hours before the vote takes place.
That, reported CNSNews, gave Hoyer the giggles: The majority leader “found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. ‘I’m laughing because . . . I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,’ he said.’’
Then came one of those classic Washington gaffes that Michael Kinsley famously defined as “when a politician tells the truth.’’ Hoyer conceded that if lawmakers had to carefully study the bill ahead of time, they would never vote for it. “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,’’ he said. The majority leader was declaring, in other words, that it is more important for Congress to pass the bill than to understand it.
Right there's a reason for a trip to DC with large amounts of tar and feathers.
AG Holder proves, once more, he's a jackass who shouldn't be in that office.
Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."
Yeah, let's prosecute people for giving advice to the President, etc., etc., that's a GREAT idea. Then people giving advice to Obama can look forward to being prosecuted in the future; that'll inspire them!
Yeah, this here is REAL journalism, all that nasty racism at those righty websites...
A Vancouver reporter accused Free Republic of allowing racist comments this weekend.
But, oddly enough, this same Vancouver Sun reporter, Chris Parry, has a very controversial background. He has advocated on Daily Kos for liberals to post hate speech on conservative blogs and blame it on conservatives.
What a strange coincidence?
Gawker reported:
You just have to wonder why some people would want to keep some programs secret from some people in Congress:
The law requires the president to make sure the intelligence committees “are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity.” But the language of the statute, the amended National Security Act of 1947, leaves some leeway for judgment, saying such briefings should be done “to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.”
Those democrats sure are working fast.
It only took them two weeks to get this leak on the front page of the NY Times.
Maybe they even helped write it?
It has to grate something fierce on people at times; they want to abide by the law, but they also don't want secret information handed over to the NYEffing Times to be published. And they can't trust a bunch of people in Congress to keep it secret.
"This just in: Obama comes across as strongman!"
Obama avoided the rookie mistake that John F. Kennedy committed at his first summit meeting in 1961, when the new president left the Russians thinking he was young, untested and uncertain.
Yeah, he just looked like frickin' Teddy Roosevelt. This guy should be drying laundry with his spin.
I haven't had time to read this whole piece, a pretty good slam on Obama and the economy. Especially look at the chart on the 'like the Great Depression' noise, AND remember the Depression wound up what it was because of people doing some of the same crap Obama is pushing.
Jimmy Carter on Steroids:
So what makes so many people still like him? He’s cool!
Steyn again:
That's enough for one morning, I need some air.
Democrat majority leader in House says won't do job or ask others to do it:
Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, is the majority leader in the House of Representatives. At a news conference last week, he was talking about the healthcare overhaul being drafted on Capitol Hill, and a reporter asked whether he would support a pledge committing members of Congress to read the bill before voting on it, and to make the full text of the legislation available to the public online for 72 hours before the vote takes place.
That, reported CNSNews, gave Hoyer the giggles: The majority leader “found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. ‘I’m laughing because . . . I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,’ he said.’’
Then came one of those classic Washington gaffes that Michael Kinsley famously defined as “when a politician tells the truth.’’ Hoyer conceded that if lawmakers had to carefully study the bill ahead of time, they would never vote for it. “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,’’ he said. The majority leader was declaring, in other words, that it is more important for Congress to pass the bill than to understand it.
Right there's a reason for a trip to DC with large amounts of tar and feathers.
AG Holder proves, once more, he's a jackass who shouldn't be in that office.
Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."
Yeah, let's prosecute people for giving advice to the President, etc., etc., that's a GREAT idea. Then people giving advice to Obama can look forward to being prosecuted in the future; that'll inspire them!
Yeah, this here is REAL journalism, all that nasty racism at those righty websites...
A Vancouver reporter accused Free Republic of allowing racist comments this weekend.
But, oddly enough, this same Vancouver Sun reporter, Chris Parry, has a very controversial background. He has advocated on Daily Kos for liberals to post hate speech on conservative blogs and blame it on conservatives.
What a strange coincidence?
Gawker reported:
But the real story here is that this same reporter and Daily Kos contributer has advocated on his Daily Kos blog any number of egregious offenses, among them: posting hate speech on sites like Free Republic and blaming it on conservatives.'Noble intentions' my ass; what's noble about faking posts so you can have a story?
It gets worse, though. Chris Parry, it appears, has advocated on his Daily Kos blog any number of egregious offenses, among them: posting hate speech on sites like Free Republic and blaming it on conservatives. Parry posted under the name "hollywoodoz" on Daily Kos, where his signature was "Fool me once, I'll punch you in the f*cking head." Parry outed himself as hollywoodoz here, where he discloses the company he helped start. In essence: Parry, the journalist, found his story right where he'd been circling it for a very long time, and reported it as news. Sigh.
Bottom line: Parry's noble intentions are paving him a road to hell...
You just have to wonder why some people would want to keep some programs secret from some people in Congress:
The law requires the president to make sure the intelligence committees “are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity.” But the language of the statute, the amended National Security Act of 1947, leaves some leeway for judgment, saying such briefings should be done “to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.”
Those democrats sure are working fast.
It only took them two weeks to get this leak on the front page of the NY Times.
Maybe they even helped write it?
It has to grate something fierce on people at times; they want to abide by the law, but they also don't want secret information handed over to the NYEffing Times to be published. And they can't trust a bunch of people in Congress to keep it secret.
"This just in: Obama comes across as strongman!"
Obama avoided the rookie mistake that John F. Kennedy committed at his first summit meeting in 1961, when the new president left the Russians thinking he was young, untested and uncertain.
Yeah, he just looked like frickin' Teddy Roosevelt. This guy should be drying laundry with his spin.
I haven't had time to read this whole piece, a pretty good slam on Obama and the economy. Especially look at the chart on the 'like the Great Depression' noise, AND remember the Depression wound up what it was because of people doing some of the same crap Obama is pushing.
Jimmy Carter on Steroids:
This is like Jimmy Carter on steroids. He can clobber your home, he can clobber you savings and your pensions, he can clobber your job, and he can basically end the dollar as a world currency. He can clobber your health care, he can get you on every front.
So what makes so many people still like him? He’s cool!
Steyn again:
So he would have to be the coolest dude on the planet to make it worth voting for him just for his sheer cool instead of what he’s saying.
The lesson here is, listen to him on the radio, don’t watch him on TV. Or read him in the cold grey light of print. Do you actually like what he says in the cold grey light of print? Do you like the policies; cause if you don’t no matter how cool he is it’s not going to make up for your collapsed home price and unemployment and a shattered retirement savings plan.
That's enough for one morning, I need some air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)