Translation from NY Gov-speak:

"You other businesses haven't annoyed us like Trump has, so as long as you don't you don't have to worry about being prosecuted!  So please don't consider leaving."As Madame Althouse says: 

What is the "extraordinary, unusual circumstance"?

Being Donald Trump? If so, she's revealing that she believes the prosecutors went after the man, not the crime, an abhorrent abuse of power.

So, whatever she thinks, she can't mean to be saying that. What else is there?
I'd say there is nothing else except the "So would you other people please not pack up and leave this state?"

Which makes me wonder if, before they started this, they even considered the lessons other businesses would take from this?

And an idea someone had: "If his properties were over-stated in value, that could mean he over paid property taxes for the N number of years; that could mean  he can refile those state taxes with the NEW declared values and probably make MORE than he would lose from the fine."  Oh, wouldn't that become interesting quickly?

British cops yank a guy's firearms license because

'People on your YouTube channel say unapproved things, making it a Forum of Extremism'. But they have no problem with a bunch of actual terrorism supporters marching.

They do, however have a big problem with a guy in a wheelchair blocking the terrorism-support march.
“These people were supporting terrorists. We had to object and not give them a free pass. These are our streets. The Government were allowing them a free rein, we had to stop them. I thought I’d challenge the Police to see if they had a legal basis to stop me exercising my freedom to protest. They said they had an order blocking the street. I asked to see it. They looked flummoxed.”
Of course they did, one of the commoners actually demanded proof of their authority to do something.

Much like the 'cops' in Berkeley, the Brit cops have been letting the protected species do just about whatever it wants; wonder if they're ready for the reaction they're helping cause?
The response can only be direct action. This action must be based on the most fundamental moral principle: reciprocity. That which you do to me, I will do to you. We will not attack you, but we will resist you. If our speakers are shouted down, yours will be shouted down as well. If you hold a protest on Holocaust Memorial Day, we will hold one on your sacred occasions. If you host antisemitic speakers, we will block the doors with our own bodies. If tuition fees pay for antisemitic groups, Jewish students will refuse to pay them. If you disrupt our events we will eject you, by force if necessary. If you boycott us, we will see to it that you are boycotted. If you hold an Israeli Apartheid Week, we will hold a Palestinian Terrorism Week. If your mob attempts to vandalize our institutions and neighborhoods, we will raise our own mob to stop you. We will hit back if we are hit. Reciprocity, after all, is accepted as a legitimate principle for all other peoples. It only becomes worrisome, problematic, unprincipled when the Jews are involved.
Of course, this is something Berkeley and some other places would be worried about if they had brains.  Because if you let one group attack and threaten another and refuse to do anything, well, there's just likely to be an equal and opposite reaction.

Whyever wouldn't they want to show how much money this is bringing i-

oh, that's why.
That leads Coombs and other gun tax opponents to wonder: How much money has Seattle collected from this tax? It's the subject of a lawsuit filed by reporter Dave Workman and the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation in September.

In the spring, Workman sought the city's tax revenue from the gun violence tax, but the city government declined to divulge the information, claiming that such records could compromise the identities of the people who have paid the tax.
Which is bullshit, but it's the excuse they chose.  Because that's much better than admitting their "It makes me feel virtuous!" tax is driving business to other cities.

Yeah, about that Australian model...

Australians now own more guns than before the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, according to new research that shows firearm imports hit a record high in 2014-15.
Doesn't fit the Preferred Narrative, does it?

There's some of the same "It's not more people shooting, it's just the same owners buying more guns!" crap the gun bigots have tried to sell here; slight problem with that:
Psychologist and self-described gun control critic Samara McPhedran, from Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program, attributes the boom in firearm sales to the rising popularity of shooting sports among a younger demographic.
“I think what the figures show fundamentally is that people are interested in target shooting and hunting, and that interest seems to be growing over time,” she said.

And under the heading of 'unintended consequences',
One unintended consequence of the post-Port Arthur gun laws was to boost the wealth and widen the influence of shooting clubs, according to Associate Professor Alpers.
The 1996 laws require gun owners to show they have a genuine reason to own a firearm. The easiest way for people in urban areas to do this is through membership in a gun club, Associate Professor Alpers said.
And not just membership but active participation. In NSW, for example, the firearm licensing regulations require members of target shooting clubs to participate at least four times a year. In Victoria, a licensed handgun owner is required to participate in at least 10 shoots a year. The requirements vary by jurisdiction.
“People who never normally went to gun clubs were now going to gun clubs and shooting ranges because the law obliged them to,” Associate Professor Alpers said.
“So the gun lobby has grown in size, political clout and, certainly, in money … as a side-effect of the post-Port Arthur gun laws.”
They put that crap in with the intention of making it onerous enough that people would give up, and some probably did; the rest are banding together and going after the politicians.  An effect the hoplophobes and gun bigots did NOT want.

Which, by the way, is making me do a happy dance.

And, speaking of not fitting the Narrative,
On the other hand, the link between Australia’s gun-buying surge and gun violence isn’t clear.

After all, rising gun sales are nothing new. “This isn’t a sudden increase. It’s a consistent pattern that we’ve seen over a number of years,” Dr McPhedran said.

“And despite those increases we’ve seen steady declines in firearm misuse.”
Shades of 'Blood in the streets!  Bodies in the gutters!' not happening, right?


And let's not forget something the Australian authorities probably wish we didn't know about: the compliance rate for the 1996 confiscations wasn't exactly sterling:
The Australian Shooters Journal did its own math in a 1997 article on the “gun buyback.” Researchers for the publication pointed out that the Australian government’s own low-ball, pre-ban estimate of the number of prohibited weapons in the country yielded a compliance rate of 19 percent.

But maybe success is in the eye of the beholder. After the expected mountains of surrendered weapons failed to manifest themselves, then-Australian Attorney General Darryl Williams’s office revised its estimate of total firearms in the country to a number lower than its pre-ban estimate of prohibited firearms, and declared victory.

Inspector McCoomb, like the Australian Shooters Journal, concluded the ban “has failed.”
Friend of mine knows someone down there, lived in an area that pre-97, did not have registration.  The guy mentioned that for a couple of months after the confiscations were announced, you couldn't find 6" PVC pipe and caps anywhere; wonder what all that was being used for...

About that 'Australian Model of Gun Control',

not as wonderful as the gun bigots like to paint it:
Clinton and Obama tout a 1996 "gun buyback" that was actually a compensated confiscation of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns, and pump-action shotguns in response to the Port Arthur mass shooting. The seizure took around 650,000 firearms out of civilian hands and tightened the rules on legal acquisition and ownership of weapons going forward.
And how did that actually work?
Other researchers agree. In a white paper on the results of gun control efforts around the world, Franz Csaszar, a professor of criminology at the University of Vienna, Austria, gives examples of large-scale non-compliance with the ban. He points out, "In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities."
Guy I know heard from a friend in Australia a few years back that when the confiscations happened, there were areas where, for a month or so, you couldn't find 6" PVC pipe; it'd all been bought up.  And most of it wasn't used for plumbing.

And the result of all this crap, as usual, is screwing with honest people and causing- maybe- minor difficulty to bad guys.
Just days ago, Australia's Peter Dutton, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and Michael Keenan, Minister for Justice, held a joint press conference to announce "We don't tolerate gun smuggling in Australia and we know Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs are engaged in it. We have been keen to send the strongest possible message from Canberra that we're not going to tolerate people smuggling in guns or smuggling in gun parts. You'd appreciate that even one smuggled gun can do an enormous amount of damage."

When politicians announce that they don't tolerate something, it's a fair bet that the something is completely out of hand.

"Police admit they cannot eradicate a black market that is peddling illegal guns to criminals," the Adelaide Advertiser conceded a few years ago. "Motorcycle gang members and convicted criminals barred from buying guns in South Australia have no difficulty obtaining illegal firearms - including fully automatic weapons."
So, the result of all this is screwing with honest citizens, increasing control over them, and causing (maybe)slight difficulty to bad guys, and creating a new black market.  And don't forget the 'make it yourself' industry this created.

Yeah, the Australian and British models, just the thing we need to follow.

What the HELL is it with some cops and killing dogs?

And this one lied about it for a few days on top of that.

Probably the same kind who considers a police dog a member of the force, if you somehow injure it will prosecute you just like you'd injured a human, it dies it'll get a full police funeral, but YOUR dog is just a problem to be disposed of.


How much you want to bet that at least some of these changes(like 'steamed instead of fried') came about because the health police demanded it? 


Of course they did; Professional Journalists generally do cover for each other and The Lightbringer.
The major broadcast networks on Friday morning and evening showed no interest in reporting to viewers that The New York Times had scrubbed from an article on its website that contained a quote from President Obama telling columnists that he did not watch enough news coverage of the Paris and San Bernardino terror attacks to truly grasp the anxiety of the American people.


Hey, Maryland, enjoy losing all those jobs and tax money because O'Malley and the other bigots and control freaks drove them out.


Next time someone starts that "If you can't fly" bullshit, point them to this.  As ONE example of that list being used to screw people.


I've taken to using 'Berntards' for Sanders supporters because enough of them have turned out to be exactly that.  And because this is true:
But the second thing to take away from it?  None of this will matter in tomorrow’s debate.  Bernie Sanders can have the campaign accuse the DNC of being in the tank for Clinton all he likes; and Sanders probably likes doing that a good deal.  But there’s no way that Bernie Sanders will look Hillary Clinton in the eye and say You are standing by and doing nothing while your lickspittle sycophants and toadies are busily abusing their positions.  This entire process is a farce, and you are a coward and a weakling for enabling it.  Bernie Sanders will never, ever say that to Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that he so obviously is thinking it, for a very simple reason: Bernie Sanders is afraid of what Hillary Clinton will do to him afterward.
...
PS: If you’ve given money to Bernie Sanders, rest assured: you’ll be hearing from Hillary Clinton, once she’s gotten the nomination. Bernie Sanders will hand over his lists without a murmur. Also: you’ll be expected to max out! …Because only dirty misogynists wouldn’t give Hillary Clinton money.  You’re not a dirty misogynist, are you? Of course you’re not… which is why you’re going to give Hillary Clinton your money. Convenient how that works out, yes?

You can donate to whoever you want, but

it'd be a good idea to know who/what you're supporting; the price for not doing so could be high.
Liquor stores in a Colorado coal town are pulling craft beers from their shelves after a number of their brewers donated to an environmental group working to shut down coal mines.
Oopsie.
Gillam’s liquor store, Stockmen’s, pulled several beer brands from its shelves, including the popular Fort Collins-based New Belgium, over their support for the group.

WildEarth Guardians has since taken down its website’s list of corporate supporters, but a cached version remains online.
"Oh crap, this might affect our donations!  Pull the list!"  You forget, bunkie, the innernets is FOREVER.
“I had a band in here on Friday night and somebody came up to me and said, ‘Did you know that New Belgium is on board with WildEarth Guardians?’ I confirmed it, and after I confirmed it, I walked up to my bartender and said, ‘Get that s— out from behind my bar,’” Griffith said. “I can’t see supporting a company that supports a company that’s trying to put us out of business. The very beer I’m selling is trying to put me out of business, because they’re in bed with WildEarth Guardians.”
Yeah, that just might piss people off, y'think?


And the response:
New Belgium confirmed that it had donated to WildEarth but said that it had no plans to continue doing so. The brewer said it was unaware of the group’s anti-coal advocacy.
"We don't plan to continue now that it's biting big chunks out of our ass."  As to whether they knew... only they can say.   And I doubt they're dumb enough to say "Yes, we knew they hate coal; so do we."

How screwed is the situation in Colorado?

The Colorado Bureau of investigation “advises local law enforcement to ignore and violate new Colorado gun laws,” Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith disclosed yesterday on a Facebook post. Furthermore, both law enforcement and gun owners who have had guns with standard capacity magazines stolen will be committing criminal acts if the gun is recovered and returned, Smith wrote in another post this morning.

“[Governor John] Hickenlooper's new laws require that every time a gun is transferred for more than 72 hours, a state background check must be conducted by an FFL dealer,” Smith advised in yesterday’s post. “When my staff inquired how law enforcement agencies were supposed to comply with that provision as they return firearms to lawful owners, the CBI representative told them law enforcement agencies were not supposed to use the system mandated by Colorado's new laws, but instead they were to conduct their own, limited (non-compliant) background check of the recipient. 

“This is in direct conflict with Governor Hickenlooper's own law,” Smith asserted.
More of the unintended(probably) consequences of this Bloomberg-written piece of crap.


Oh yeah, we can trust the BATFEIEIO with this.


And, just in time to save Democrats from the 2014 elections,
I suppose my question, a little bit later, would be "From where does he derive the right to unilaterally change his misbegotten law without Congressional action? Just because his law is so horribly screwed up he thinks he has the unilateral power to alter it?"
The answer would be 'From nowhere; he does not have that authority.  But unless Congress nails him on this, he'll get away with it.

Again.


Yes, it's the Daily Kos.  Yes, the article is Why liberals should love the Second Amendment. 
And it's a pretty good article.
The comments, however, quickly become a cesspool of 'conservatives and white militia are after the blacks', which is unfortunate(I guess all the Democrats who founded the Klan and did everything possible to crap on blacks are all counted as 'conservatives', thus absolving the D party of any responsibility for anything).

"I'm a feminist, but this crap I helped create

is completely out of hand!"  Well, yeah.


If this stuff is correct, then there's some people playing nasty games in this bombing, and they need to be dealt with:
1. One source at the FBI and another at the Saudi Embassy referred to the student as connected to an important Saudi family.
2. An “event” was created on this guy three days ago. An event is a file. The file contains his deportation record and the reason he is being deported. According to ICE the reason is under section 212 3B — “Security and related grounds” — “Terrorist activities”
3. His visa has been revoked.
4. The FBI said a file was started “just in case he was found to be connected to the crime,” however, the file shows he was scheduled to be deported. This was not a precaution, it was in “orders.”


Roundup of reactions by the hoplophobes and bigots.
And something more on how they think:
“Bribery isn’t what it once was,” said an official with one of the major gun-control groups. “The government has no money. Once upon a time you would throw somebody a post office or a research facility in times like this. Frankly, there’s not a lot of leverage.”


Meanwhile, back in Missouri,
MO Sen. Kurt Schaefer explained on my program today that officials in last week’s public hearings failed to disclose that the ATF was the federal entity who made the request for the CCW list, alongside the Department of Social Security. The ATF has not explained why they wanted this information, which by Missouri law, is illegal to share.
...
The ATF was never mentioned by the heads of the Department of Revenue (who resigned over this scandal), or the head of the Missouri Highway Patrol, or the DMV. It was only discovered by digging through documents Schaefer subpoenaed. “We were never told that the ATF was part of this request. Why does the ATF need a list of Missouri gun owners except to have a list of Missouri gun owners?” said Schaefer. “This isn’t even a backdoor list, this is a front door list. There is a magical database and the taxpayers paid for it.”
A: the Highway Patrol chief needs to be fired.  No ifs, ands or buts.
B: Whoever at DMV approved/did this, the same. 
Both not only for doing it, but for basically lying to the committee.
And this is one more case of ATF playing games they've got no business playing.  And we're supposed to trust them?