Saturday, June 25, 2016

Without going into details,

I'm currently starting a healing process(don't ask); therefore, sitting and studying is a good thing right now.

Every politician pushing this bill ought to be removed from office.

No jokes, no crap, this is horrible.  It includes this:
"No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section except pursuant to a petition for review under section."

Yes, this says you cannot question if the Flake Amendment (my name for it), the no-fly-no-buy law is legal. Clearly, it isn't, hence they won't tolerate questions.
There's more.  A lot more, and it's just as bad.
By coincidence, the same Justice Dept. decides if: 1) you meet the criteria for the no-new-guns list, and 2) for the freedom-to-travel-but-not-by-air list, and 3) it's the same Justice Dept. that controls review of the list, and 4) it also controls appeals for reversals if you sue. By law, after your first hearing, no appeals are allowed. Have a nice day:
"(h) EXCLUSIVE REMEDY.—The judicial review under a petition for review filed under subsection (c)* shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for a claim by an individual who challenges a denial under subsection (a)(1).
* "(c) An individual... who seeks to challenge a denial... may file a petition for review and any claims related to that petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court of appeals of the United States for the judicial circuit in which the individual resides."
And for good measure, in case you want to know why you have been denied:
"(d)(4) No discovery shall be permitted, unless the court shall determine extraordinary circumstances requires discovery in the interests of justice." Read it all for yourself if you have the stomach.

Place that painted daughters house- very badly is 'Vega's Drywall and Painting'

She's got pictures, and these people didn't even scrape properly before they painted.  And broke the globe on the light out front.

Her mother knows a lawyer, and she'll be talking to them along with the BBB Monday.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Without further words,

the data dump for tonight.

Let's say it's not the best of evenings

Besides the heat and so forth, daughter hired a company to paint her house; they did a bad job, damages some of the plants, left a pile of trash in the yard, didn't put some of the screens back up.  And when she complained to the owner, he got downright nasty.

So on Monday she's contacting the Better Business Bureau, and anyone else she can think of.  AG's office consumer affairs, etc.

This is such bullshit.  You'd think, the economy being as it is, a company would want the customers to be happy with their work, not telling everyone they know(and in these internet days, that's a LOT of people) what a crappy job they did.

And they wonder why we don't trust them...

An immigration official who stopped Homeland Security agents from arresting the alleged gun supplier of the San Bernardino terrorists the day after the attack, and then lied about it to department investigators, is to receive an award for her work.

Irene Martin allegedly prevented armed officers from detaining Enrique Marquez, who was scheduled to be interviewed alongside his Russian wife Mariya Chernyk, a government report has stated.

Yet despite her deliberate obstruction, where she seemingly blocked five armed Department of Homeland Security agents, she has been nominated for the Secretary's Award for Valor.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Department of Homeland Security officials refuse to say what Martin did to earn the award which is described as 'the highest departmental recognition for extraordinary acts of valor by an employee or group, occurring while on or off duty' and is reserved for 'those who have demonstrated extraordinary courage in a highly dangerous, life-threatening situation or emergency under extreme stress and involving a specific act of valor, such as saving another person's life or property.'

FoxNews has applied for a Freedom of Information Act request to establish what the award is for.
And while this crap is going on, the head of the place is demanding that "Gun control is a matter of national security!"

Being old-fashioned in some ways, I find myself leaning towards anthills and honey

for the miserable excuses for lawmen involved in this.  Though I am open to other suggestions.  For instance, should the doctor also get an anthill, or a probe involving an old, splintery shovel handle?
According to the complaint, after presenting her identity documents, an unidentified CBP agent accused Cervantes of possessing illegal drugs, which she denied. She was ordered to proceed to a detention room, where she was handcuffed to a chair. There, she was sniffed by a dog (in violation of CBP policy) and was taken to another room where she was ordered to squat so that female officers could visually inspect her.

Unsatisfied that they had not found the drugs, the agents escalated their search. CBP Agent Shameka Leggett then filled out an Immigration Health Services’ form, known as a Treatment Authorization Request (TAR), describing Cervantes as being "diagnosed" as an apparent "potential internal carrier of foreign substance." The agent recommended that she be X-rayed at a hospital.
Don't worry, it gets worse.
Without obtaining a knowing or willful consent, or obtaining an accurate detailed medical history, agents/servants/employees of Holy Cross, including Dr. [Patrick] Martinez, searched Ashley for contraband.
The Holy Cross records from Ashley’s time at the facility include a number of factual inaccuracies, including inaccurately setting out that Ashley was accompanied by her mother and arrived in a private vehicle. In reality, Ashley was transported in a CBP vehicle. Her handcuffs were not removed until she changed into a hospital gown for the alleged purpose of undergoing an X-Ray.
Ashley was never X-rayed, despite that being the only "course of treatment" authorized by the TAR.
That an audience of CBP Agents and Holy Cross staff observed her being probed compounded her feeling of degradation. No drugs were found inside Ashley, who was then discharged from Holy Cross and transported, by CBP, back to the Port of Entry.
And, just to add to this pile of crap,
The Arizona Capitol Times quoted Marchetti as saying that her parents were also served with a $575 hospital bill.
Like what happened with that guy raped by the cops in New Mexico.  Isn't that just the thing to add some oxidizer to the mix?

The Border Patrol: they can't effectively stop illegals from crossing, but they can rape girls on bullshit charges.

And I hope that doctor loses his license, and all the idiots who helped him, at the least.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

This "Everybody we don't like is guilty, not the terrorist!" crap (update)

has reached epic levels of stupid.  Only Black Lives Matter has weighed in, and you'll not be surprised to hear that it wasn't the fault of the asshole terrorist, oh no.  No possible link to islamist matters, either.
Imagine that white right-wing extremist Tim McVeigh blows up the Murrah Building, but some conservative group says the real criminals are black gay liberals. Anybody who said that would be instantly ridiculed, and never taken seriously again by any morally sane person. Somehow, I doubt that will happen with these sacred monsters.

Meanwhile, in Sodom on the Potomac, among those not involved in the temper tantrum,
The Senate rejected legislation Wednesday that would allow the FBI to search Americans’ Internet browsing histories and email records without a warrant.
By a barely-enough vote.

There are far too many "I'll trade your privacy and rights for the perception of security!" idiots in office.

Speaking of said idiots, and the secret lists so many of them like so much,
The air marshals, whose identities are being concealed, told 7NEWS that they're required to submit at least one report a month. If they don't, there's no raise, no bonus, no awards and no special assignments.

"Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons, acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft ... and they did nothing wrong," said one federal air marshal.
Yeah, that's good reason to use a secret list to take rights away.
What kind of impact would it have for a flying individual to be named in an SDR?

"That could have serious impact ... They could be placed on a watch list. They could wind up on databases that identify them as potential terrorists or a threat to an aircraft. It could be very serious," said Don Strange, a former agent in charge of air marshals in Atlanta. He lost his job attempting to change policies inside the agency.

This is what happens when kids aren't thought to actually think:
A student from Helena High School in Montana, Kaitlyn Juvik, was seriously disturbed about men “sexualizing women’s bodies.” So, she decided to organize No Bra Day at Helena: A day where perky high school girls would walk the halls and go to classes bra-less in protest. 

That'll show 'em! Talk about a dagger to the heart of the patriarchy; I don’t know how male privilege will ever rebound from the onslaught of bra-less girls.
Yep; jiggling boobs and nipples have nothing to do with sex and stuff...
Update: Windy commented
And it isn't the clothing that is patriarchal, it is the interest from unwanted men that is. She doubtless thinks women should dress as little as they wish and crucify men if the wrong men look twice.
Remember, girls can show but boys can't tell. 

Which reminded me of this:

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

And let's not forget who's who at DHS

Now, one controversial former FBI agent -- and current consultant to the Obama administration on "countering violent extremism" (CVE) -- is suggesting a national gun registry be created. Such a registry would target millions of law-abiding American citizens.
So?  We're all just peasants in Flyover Country.

Just who is this clown?
In December 2002, ABC News reported accusations by two veteran FBI investigators that Abdel-Hafiz interfered in ongoing terror investigations:
Perhaps most astounding of the many mistakes, according to Flessner and an affidavit filed by Wright, is how an FBI agent named Gamal Abdel-Hafiz seriously damaged the investigation. Wright says Abdel-Hafiz, who is Muslim, refused to secretly record one of al-Kadi's suspected associates, who was also Muslim. Wright says Abdel-Hafiz told him, Vincent and other agents that "a Muslim doesn't record another Muslim.""He wouldn't have any problems interviewing or recording somebody who wasn't a Muslim, but he could never record another Muslim," said Vincent.
Far from being reprimanded, Abdel-Hafiz was promoted to one of the FBI's most important anti-terrorism posts, the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia, to handle investigations for the FBI in that Muslim country.
That enough?  No?
Abdel-Hafiz was ordered fired in May 2003 by the FBI's top disciplinary officer for a variety of personal and professional problems, including insurance fraud and mismanagement of important 9/11-related files at the bureau's office in Riyadh.

The ordering firing Abdel-Hafiz was later overruled in 2004 by a special three-man panel convened to hear the case. As Newsweek reported, his reinstatement coincided with efforts by the FBI to hire more Muslim and Arabic-speaking personnel.
And he's 'advising the administration'...

And what's happening in Sodom on the Potomac right now?

A bunch of Democrats are sitting on the floor of the House 'demanding a vote' on cutting chunks out of due process, in the guise of 'We want gun control laws!' 

This after there were votes on four bills yesterday on this, which apparently didn't count. 

Their oath to uphold the Constitution being worthless, here's one response

And a true winner from Iowahawk
Please note that the asshole holding a copy of the Constitution is the same Rep. Lewis who did everything he could, from blocking to screaming to calling people racists, to shield Holder and ATF from investigation, and paying any price, for Fast & Furious and all the other gunrunning operations.

Speaking of Lewis and secret lists,
A second prominent lawmaker said Friday that he's been subjected to extra security at airports because his name appears on a list designed to prevent terrorists from boarding planes.

Rep. John Lewis, D - Georgia, a nine-term congressman famous for his civil rights work with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has been stopped 35 to 40 times over the past year, his office said.
You'd think he'd remember that.  Unless it doesn't matter when he's helping do it to others.
Lewis contacted the Department of Transportation, the Department of Homeland Security and executives at various airlines in a so-far fruitless effort to get his name off the list, said spokeswoman Brenda Jones.
Which gives you great trust in the Democrats "You can petition the government to prove your innocence" bullshit, doesn't it?

"You're planning bad things, I know it!

Why else would you buy one of those?"
Oh, target shooting, hunting, self-defense maybe.  Which of those do you consider the 'bad thing'?
“The fact is, the AR-15, the gun that (Omar) Mateen used, that’s a weapon of war; it’s advertised as being able do technologically advances in killing people that previous weapons have been unable to do and somebody who is buying that kind of a weapon isn’t buying it for target shooting,” she said.
Plus the standard "You don't use one to hunt deer!", etc.

It's nice when they demonstrate openly how ignorant they are, isn't it?

Pratt doesn't let MSNBC host get away with the usual crap, host doesn't like it.

A time I (mostly) agree with Vox, and it's on those idiot watch lists:
Under the proposal, people who have been under investigation at any time in the last five years for terrorism are placed under scrutiny, even if they’re not on the list. And the government doesn't appear to be scrupulously committed to pruning down the list itself. Being acquitted of terrorism charges or having those charges dismissed is actually cited as a reason to put someone on the watch list — not a reason to take him off.

In other words, the proposal is guaranteed to sweep up people who the government has already determined, for sure, don’t pose a threat — and return them to scrutiny all over again.
Overall, a good piece.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

When the usual suspects start invoking 'Australia model',

they do NOT mean licenses and restrictions: they mean confiscation.
The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation. Only the articles from USA Today and the Washington Post cited above contain the crucial information that the buyback was compulsory. The article by Smith-Spark, the latest entry in the genre, assuredly does not. It’s the most important detail about the main provision of Australia’s gun laws, and pundits ignore it. That’s like writing an article about how Obamacare works without once mentioning the individual mandate.
Because most of them don't have the guts to openly say what they actually want.

Yet when American gun control advocates and politicians praise Australia’s gun laws, that’s just what they’re doing. Charles Cooke of the National Review shredded the rhetorical conceit of bellowing “Australia!” last year after President Obama expressed his admiration for gun control à la Oz:
You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.
They do like invoking the magical words 'gun buyback'.  Two problems with that:
You can't 'buy back' something that never belonged to you,
Someone saying "Give us your property or we'll throw you in prison.  Protest too much and we'll kill you.  But we'll give you a little money, so you don't feel so bad about this" is still confiscation under threat of prison or death.  They just don't like to talk about that part.

Also, something said by the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, while he was telling us we ought to do what they did:
Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)
He thinks it's better not to have a Bill of Rights, because that way the government can decide just what your rights are.

For the moment.  They're subject to change at any time this way.  And the courts can't get in the way so much.

Let me say this with great feeling to Mr. Howard and anyone else who thinks this way:
Screw you.  And screw your 'The .gov should decide what your rights are' bullshit.  We've got a bunch of politicians who wish they could rule that way; right now they're trying to do more damage to that troublesome 'due process' thing that gets in their way; they're being told, with loud voices, just what they can do with that attitude.

Oh, they don't care; after all, they know better than we what's good for us, so our opinions don't matter.  Neither does their oath to uphold the Constitution, which tells you exactly what their word is worth.

They do know(the honest and non-stupid ones, at least) that the real reason they can't get their crap through is because so many people tell their congresscritter "Vote for this, and your ass is out at the next election", and the critters know they mean it.  And the bigots and hoplophobes can't stand it.  They also don't want to acknowledge that, so we hear all the crap about the 'evil NRA that wants people to DIE!!', and Fauxcahontas screaming "The Republicans want to arm ISIS!!"

Screw 'em all.  And make sure your congresscritter knows just what you think, and that you damn well mean it.  As Lawdog said, they've already stolen most of our cake, and we're working on taking it back, a piece at a time.

Why did the White House just humiliate Loretta Lynch?

Same reason it sent Rice and Clinton out to lie; it hopes women, especially black women, will be given slack that nobody else would.  And when it doesn't work out, "Oh well, at least Dear Leader didn't have his face attached to this(officially)."

Yesterday there were four "We have to do SOMETHING!" anti-gun-ownership bills heard; all went down.  Which is good, not just for keeping the bigots from making a gain, but because due process is a precious thing, and oathbreaking bastards wanting to chip away at it 'Because Safety!' is horseshit.  And ought to be considered reason for removing them from office.

And the wailing and screaming is what you expect from the Usual Suspects.  Speaking of, this piece of genius from Murphy(CT), when it was pointed out that this crap would not have stopped any of the past incidents he keeps yelling about:
KARL:  OK. But what I’m trying to get at is that every time there’s one of these terrible tragedies, there’s these proposals. Your proposal would have done nothing in the case of Orlando. It would have done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino, and in fact, was unrelated to the killing in Newtown. So why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres that we are responding?

MURPHY: First of all, we can’t get into that trap.  I disagree. I think if this proposal had been into effect, it may have stopped this shooting. But we can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend the proposals simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy. We should be making our gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes so that future killings don’t happen.
'it may have stopped this shooting'.  Really?  HOW? is the question I'd have asked.  and then 'Just because this wouldn't have done a thing to stop all the cases I use as example doesn't mean we shouldn't do it anyway!'  Because doing something, no matter how useless and damaging, is important because it'll make him feel good.  "I did Something!  It's useless, and it harms the country, but I feel really good so that's all ok!"


Monday, June 20, 2016

Modern Journalism

A biker is walking through the zoo in Washington, DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker  runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings the girl to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A reporter has watched the whole event.

The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and bravest thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.'

The biker replies, 'It was nothing, really. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted.'

The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page. So, what do you do for a living, and what political affiliation do you have?'

The biker replies "I'm a U.S. Marine, and a Republican".

The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:

I am not an expert, nor do I blog as one;

That does not prevent me from reading this and thinking "Sweet bleepin' Krishna on a pogo stick!"
Parts that really jump out:
We also know that two patrol/SWAT cops arrived on scene about a minute after the special duty officer called for assistance.  It appears that they (correctly) made entry and engaged the killer as well.  The officers’ quick entry caused the gunman to retreat to the bathroom with hostages.  At some point in time the first two officers on the scene left the building.  I think that was a huge mistake.
Think maybe?
When the cops left, that gave the killer an opportunity to leave his shelter, kill 29 people in the other bathroom, and finish up some of the wounded on the dance floor.  He couldn’t have done that so easily if the cops had held their initial positions.
Yes, I know, "We don't know everything", etc.  This still sounds bloody awful.

This article clearly describes how the cops were on scene and just outside the door as the killer was still actively firing shots.  Not good.  The cops should have made immediate entry rather than waiting three hours.  Undoubtedly, many of the casualties bled to death during that three hour delay.  Making entry, while dangerous, is a much better option than letting innocent victims die.
Sounds something like Columbine, doesn't it?

Side note: someone shows that idiot "It took 11 of THESE guys to take him down, your gun wouldn't have helped" poster, send them this.  And ask if a gun in the hand just might have done some good while the cops were outside.

That's a nice, polite way to say "Screw you, General,

and the pork you're riding around on."
The Special Forces Association forcefully rebuked calls for more gun control from both former CIA director and CENTCOM commander David Petraeus and retired Army general Stanley McChrystal. SFA is a 52 year national organization composed of members who once served in the U.S. Special Forces.

The organization drew up a membership resolution at their annual convention in Jacksonville, Florida on Saturday, confirming prior statements of continued support of the U.S. “Constitution and all of its amendments, realizing that only the existence of the Second Amendment guarantees the freedom of the American people and that the Bill of Rights was written to delineate and restrict the power of government and not to restrict the powers and rights of the people or states.”

Sen. Feinstein: "Screw the Constitution and my oath,

I want this!"
In the revised version, there is no additional requirement that the attorney general have reason to believe the weapon the suspect is trying to buy will be used in a terrorist attack. Hence an old lady who cut a check to a Hamas-affiliated charity (thereby "providing material support" to terrorism and arguably threatening public safety) could be stopped from buying a handgun for self-defense even if there was no evidence that she planned any sort of attack with it. Feinstein's amendment also expands the dragnet beyond the FBI's so-called Terrorist Watchlist, which is believed to include more than 1 million people, to cover anyone who was under investigation for "conduct related to a federal crime of terrorism" during the previous five years. The Justice Department would be notified of attempted gun purchases by people who fit that description, giving it a chance to block the sales.

Feinstein's earlier bill notionally allows someone stripped of his Second Amendment rights to challenge the attorney general's decision, but on terms very favorable to the government, which need only show it is more likely than not that the statutory criteria were met. The upshot is that people could permanently lose their constitutional rights based a low probability that they are involved in terrorism—perhaps on the order of 10 or 15 percent, depending on how "appropriately suspected" and "reasonable belief" are defined. Feinstein apparently decided that standard was too demanding, because her amendment says only that someone wrongly prevented from buying a gun can make use of "the remedial procedures set forth in section 103(g) of Public Law 103-1059."

And that bitch Collins trying to play "Let's find a middle ground that's not quite so nasty, but still bad.
Although her idea has not been completely fleshed out yet, The Wall Street Journal reports that it would ban gun sales to "terrorism suspects who appear on either the government's 'no-fly list' or on a separate 'selectee list' that requires additional screening at airports," as opposed to the broader Terrorist Watchlist. The Journal says "individuals could appeal the decision blocking the purchase of a firearm," but it's not clear what the government's burden would be. Collins also would require that the Justice Department be notified when someone who was on one of those lists in the previous five years tries to buy a gun.
So if you're one of the many people put on this idiot list(s) in error, or for no good reason, you're screwed for the next five years.  Wonderful.

Now, just to add in: remember Jeh Johnson, head of DHS, announcing 'right-wing terrorism is just as great a threat!' ?  Guess who many groups could be lumped-in under 'terrorist-connected' or something?

Do YOU trust them not to abuse such?  I don't.

"We will censor the transcripts, for the public good."

Translation: "He said things that conflict with what the President wants people to hear and think, so we'll get rid of those parts."

True, but tell us something we don't know.
"The huge due process concern is about limiting any constitutional right based on what amounts to an arbitrary, mostly unreviewable, mostly secret, frequently clearly incompetent list of people," White told the Examiner. "It's hard to imagine a bigger due process violation."

"The list is notoriously full of people who have done nothing at all," he added.
Asked specifically about Manchin and Murphy, White said their attitudes were "completely contemptible."

"Either stupid or dishonest to be saying it," he said, adding, "there is no rational basis to believe that a list restricting any right based on this list is going to be treated any differently.

"What the Democrats are really saying is, 'Because this restricts gun rights, we don't give a s—-t.'

"And before, to be honest, the Republicans and most of the Democrats would say, 'Because this is related to terrorism, we don't give a s—-t.' I'm disgusted with them all," he concluded.
When I call these people 'oathbreakers', I'm not kidding.  They took an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet every time you turn around they're finding some reason for 'We should ignore this part, because (fill in the blank).'  And this should be reason to remove them from office.

It's reported that the Brit who murdered a politician a couple of days ago used a homemade gun.  

There'll probably be a push to (further) censor the internet: "We cannot allow dangerous information like this to be freely available!"

There's a piece going around about how 'gun nuts LIE about what the founders said about guns!', etc.  Here's a response.  It includes
And there’s a reason absolutely no gun extremist will ever direct you to that 1788 essay because it blows their baloney into a million pieces.
Except at Gun Cite, where legal scholar David Hardy quotes Publius’ words, and in this essay by Tea Party, whom frothing nuts like Arends hate with the passion of a thousand burning suns, and quoted here at the Rense Report, and cited here by conservative/libertarian economist and columnist Walter Williams. But maybe Arends didn’t mean these extremists? Maybe there are some other extremists running around who are afraid of Federalist 29? Nope. Maybe it’s because those of us who want to protect the right to keep and bear arms have actually read it and other Federalist Papers, as well as citations from other Founding Fathers supporting the Second Amendment’s definitive language that protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The suspect charged with murder in connection with a vacant building fire in Los Angeles was in the United States illegally and had a string of arrests to his name -- but the feds never deported him, officials said Friday.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

I have a strange desire for one of these

No money for it, or place to keep it, but yeah, I want one.

If this is correct, that company

screwed the pooch bigtime.
A doctor who is listed on the psychological evaluation for Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, said she did not see him and she was not even living in Florida at the time when G4S security firm ordered the evaluation. 

Psychologist, Dr Carol Nudelman, who now lives in Colorado, said in a statement released through her attorneys to the Miami Herald that she never evaluated Mateen nine years ago for G4S, a security firm that was known as Wackenhut at the time.

Yeah, that messy 'due process' stuff doesn't seem to have a lot of fans among Democrats.  At least when it comes to guns.
People whose names appear on a federal terror watch list or no-fly list shouldn't be presumed "innocent until proven guilty" for purposes of buying a firearm, according to Democratic lawmakers.

"I don't think that innocent until proven guilty is the standard that applies here," Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., told the Washington Examiner. "We're talking about owning a gun, not being convicted of a crime."
Wonderful, isn't it?
"If you're going to say that every one on the watch list has to be adjudicated onto the watch list, you won't have a watch list," he told the Examiner. "[Feinstein] specifies two legal avenues to protest your name being included ... It certainly gives due process."
AFTER, at some point, you find out you're on the secret list.


On a happier subject,
Experiment with sourdough.  Yep, it's good.

For the female readers,

a short set of data that might meet with your approval

Yeah. right.

Pres also urges nation to protect National Parks from ravages of climate change and pollution. Says Earth "the only planet we've got."
— Mark Knoller (@markknoller)

Not often you see a presidential motorcade in @YosemiteNPS. Nice novelty for the wildlife.
— Mark Knoller (@markknoller)and
We are SO excited to welcome President and Mrs. Obama here today! Park will be completely closed from 1 – 4:30 p.m. Bat Flight at 7:30 p.m.
— Carlsbad Caverns NPS (@CavernsNPS)