Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, June 30, 2011

The jobs Americans just won't do.



So many liberals, excuse me, "Progressives" on the Left claim that large-scale immigration is necessary because there are jobs that Americans - even the unemployed - simply won't do. That there are thousands, millions of people South of the Border who are willing to come up here and do them, if we would simply stop persecuting them, discriminating against them, and open our borders.

This enterprising family has discovered their niche, and have been doing the job that American citizens have simply refused to do, a job that must be done. Although they are not quite as skilled at it as some have been in the past, they did the best they could with the tools they had, but now their dreams are at an end, because law enforcement stepped in when local citizens complained about them. Now a grandmother, her children and even one of her grandchildren sit in jail, just because some petty individuals didn't like them. It's a cryin' shame, I tell ya.


And yes, they are illegal ("undocumented") aliens.
AKA: Soon to be Democrats

They just don't get it.

Albert Einstein is reputed to have defined "insanity" as doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result each time. In the big picture, that certainly applies to socialism. The Left - especially the fools in academia and in politics - think that if they can just institute socialism their way, it will work this time. (Sigh.)

It also applies to the methods the Left uses to create socialism here in America. The just don't get the notion that increasing taxes means less revenue. That the income taxes from fewer people at a higher rate simply won't match what could be gathered by the income taxes from a much larger group of people at a lower rate.

California has decided to tax Internet sales, not simply of California businesses that have a physical presence within their state, but all sales involving the Internet, and Governor Moonbeam just signed it into law. (You remember him from the last time he was governor, don't you? "Jerry Brown's Space Program: $60 million dollars spent exploring Uranus.") They claim they will realize $200 million dollars in revenue from this. Instead, the businesses that exist on the Internet will simply stop doing business with Californians rather than have to collect the taxes and then pay them to the state of California. Amazon.com - where I make a thousand or so dollars of purchases each year - has stated it will stop doing business with affiliates in California (all 25,000+ of them). So those businesses will probably shut down, since they won't be able to sell to folks who live outside of California either (like myself, a legal resident of Oregon - no sales tax - who is currently staying in Montana - no sales tax). Instead of getting more tax revenue from them, they will now get zero.

The Supreme Court (before Obama radicalized it into the social activist arm of his administration), declared it unConstitutional for a state to tax interstate commerce when the companies involved have no physical presence within a state. But a number of states (New York, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Illinois, Arkansas, and Connecticut) have passed similar laws, and apparently are ignoring SCOTUS, although several of those states are being taken to court by Amazon and others.

This may well get straightened out, and California may have to rescind this ridiculous attempt at theft, but probably not before the businesses - and dreams - of thousands of people have been destroyed. Any doubts that California is a socialist state, or that Jerry Brown is a Marxist, should be settled now.
(h/t Honourable Means at Bonnie Blue Blog)

Monday, June 27, 2011

TSA needs to die. Literally.

This is so bad I cannot even comment upon it without resorting to unacceptable profanity and verbalization of a desire to end the lives of those guilty of this behavior. Were this my mother (who died of cancer in her seventies), I would hunt these people down and dispose of them like rabid dogs. And smile while doing it.


http://hellonearth-1.blogspot.com/2011/06/tsa-screws-pooch-again.html

http://www.newsherald.com/news/mother-94767-search-adult.html

Soul mate


I don't know who this guy or gal is, but we are definitely cut from the same cloth. As a veteran who spent over eight years giving back to other veterans by working at a shitty VA hospital in Roseburg, OR (it was only shitty for the last six of the eight - ask me who the Directors were during that time ;-), I just came across this photo of a note posted on the window of a veteran's center in the great state of Washington.

I have no use for thieves. Sure, some are simply helpless people who are unable to support their drug habits by honest work (unemployed? unwilling to work? disabled but capable of breaking, entering, and stealing computer equipment?), but some are actually bad people {sarcasm off}. Removing them from the gene pool, although they may have already polluted it with some of their own genetic flotsam and jetsam, is a goodness thing.

Whoever you are, you clever sir or madam, I would like to shake your hand. Even if it is still covered in gunpowder residue.

One Double Standard, Coming Right Up


Those few folks who know me have an idea how I feel about anti_Semitism, and the Jews. It's possible I might have mentioned coming close to strangling my ex mother-in-law (while she was still my m-i-l) when she stated that the Jews got what they deserved in the Holocaust. She is representative of much of the Left, as they claim to be compassionate and caring, claim to be supportive of minorities, but are strangely silent - including even "Progressive" Jews - when the subject is anti-Semitism, or Israel.
[Ed. note: the m-i-l had had enough to drink that night to speak to how she really felt about her Jewish "friends". Would you be surprised to discover her parents were German?]

Here recently, it has become known that Saudi Arabia refuses to let Jews, or anyone who has ever gotten a stamp on their passport in Israel, into Saudi Arabia. They have admitted it is illegal to be in Saudi Arabia if you are a Jew. Apparently, Delta Airlines is cooperating with Saudi Arabia on this, as they continue to fly their aircraft there, in spite of the obvious racist, anti-Semitic behavior of that country.

Where is the outcry from the Left? Where are the shouts of racism, the condemnation of Saudi Arabia for its racist refusal to admit Jews into their country? Could it be that the Left only plays the race card when it is a race of which they approve? Or is it simply that there is no benefit to them from playing the Jewish race card, so it doesn't get played? That they really have no love for the minorities they pretend to care about, but only use the accusation of racism to assault those they dislike, without any true concern for the minorities involved?

As this article points out, the Israelis not only allow people of all races, creeds and nationalities to live in Israel, they even have Arabs, muslims, in their legislature, the Knesset. As opposed to countries such as Saudi Arabia, where it is illegal to be Jewish, let alone a citizen, let alone a participant in government.

What do we hear from the Left about this? Nothing. Silence. Yet, were Israel to ban the presence of muslims within Israel - which they have excellent reason to do, given the number of Israelis killed and maimed by muslims - the Left would be screaming its invective, calling Israel racist, inhumane, cruel and unjust, demanding they be invaded by U.N. troops and brought to heel.

I guess that makes the Left the poster child for hypocrisy. But, we knew that, didn't we? We knew that those elites who utilize the Left, the Progressive movement, to advance their aims are willing to say anything, do anything, to forward their agenda. Including using minorities - who they really don't care about - as a front for creating socialism in America. Oh, they love minorities, all right. When they are nannies, chauffeurs, gardeners, and servants. When they are voters willing to keep the Democrats who serve the Left in power. Just don't invite them to the country club. Well, maybe a few caddies and a token golf pro.

Friday, June 24, 2011

A look at the future in store for us, if we allow it.


There are many in this country who believe guns are evil, that they cause people to do harmful, deadly things that they would never do if there only weren't any guns available. Of course, there is no logic capable of supporting this belief, nor any facts that encourage such a supposition, but they continue to believe it nonetheless.

For the moment, we will leave aside all of the excellent reasons for acknowledging the right to keep and bear arms, save one: self-defense. Most states have laws written which explain that the defense of another who is at risk of bodily injury or death is considered part of self-defense. So, you are not breaking the law if you defend a family member, a friend, a neighbor, or even a defenseless child or woman or elderly man, any of whom are not currently capable of defending themselves. The laws codify the right of an individual to use deadly force to save another, as well as yourself.

In this country (at least for the present moment), it is acceptable to use deadly force to defend yourself against home invaders. Of course, if those invaders happen to be cops, you will most likely die. But, if it happens to be a gang of balaclava-wearing men who appear intent upon doing you harm, you are entitled to defend yourself and any others in your home who might be at risk of said bodily injury or death. You need only fear for your life, or theirs, or fear bodily injury, and you may respond with all of the force necessary to stop or repel those invading your home.

However, if you happen to live in England, all bets are off. English law, established by some years of recent precedent, denies you not only the right to arm yourself with a firearm for self-defense, you are not permitted to injure your assailant in any manner whatsoever. There have been many instances of British subjects (subjects are different from citizens) defending themselves with a bat, or a club, or a knife, or even using their hands and their feet, and being arrested and sent to jail. English law does not accept the right of their subjects to defend themselves against aggression, no matter how egregious.

Here is a recent article about a family being arrested for murder when one of a group of masked men - wearing balaclavas - who forced their way into their home, ended up dying from a stab wound, which the article leads us to believe was caused by a member of the family. Frankly, I would probably simply clam up if it was me, and force the court to prove it was I who had stabbed the criminal, rather than one of his criminal cohort, who they may never even identify, let alone locate and bring in for questioning. Having read a bit about the current state of English law enforcement, though, it wouldn't surprise me to read that the local police offered one of the other criminals complete immunity to come forward and testify against this family they are accusing of murder.

Much like one of our "esteemed" U.S. Attorneys did in the 2006 Ramos/Compean case, where two Border Agents were sent to prison for shooting a drug smuggler in the ass when he attempted to flee the scene after one of the agents had been assaulted and injured. The U.S. Attorney gave the drug smuggler - arrested numerous times, a criminal known to American law enforcement even though he was a Mexican citizen - complete immunity to get on the stand and lie his bandaged ass off in the Attorney's successful attempt to send two good men to prison for the effrontery of stopping a known felon by wounding him, a criminal whom one of the agents thought had seriously injured his partner.

That was a travesty of justice. (It did not appear to be a case of excessive force, as seems to have become somewhat common these days.) Even so, it is actually more legitimate to scrutinize the actions of law enforcement - whose officers, are supposed to be held to a higher standard of behavior - than to criminalize an individual's right to protect himself and those he loves. In England it has become unacceptable to use force to defend oneself. It is reason for their judicial system to criminalize you and put you in gaol (jail).

There are many Democrats, and I include Obama in this group, who believe the European model of society is superior to American society. They believe the British National Health System is superior to ours, and wish to introduce many of its features into our healthcare system (The Affordable Care Act, aka: Obamacare). Many of these same people would love to see us disarmed, stripped of our firearms, in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has finally recognized the correctness of the Second Amendment as an individual right. (All the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, inhering to the individual, not a group.)

These people would love to see us suffer at the hands of criminals, as that is the price of disarming us. I realize some of you reading this may say it is outrageous of me to claim to know they would "love to see us suffer", but stop to consider this: if they would love to see an America without firearms (indisputable fact), and they realize, as they must, that this would mean increased depredation at the hands of criminals - burglars, robbers, rapists - then it is indeed fair to say they would love to see us suffer at their hands.

This could be, will be our fate if we allow our country to be molded into a socialist copy of Great Britain or the rest of Europe. If we allow our elected "representatives" to act upon their desires, their agenda rather than what we (The People) want and need as Americans. Do any of you imagine criminals will be less likely to break into our homes to steal, rob and rape our wives, daughters, sisters and mothers if we follow in Britain's footsteps? If we allow ourselves to be disarmed and incapable of resisting? Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. (Remember that the courts - including SCOTUS - have decided that the police have no duty to protect you, only to protect "society" at large.) They are certain to get there in time to draw a lovely chalk mark around your cooling corpse.

I read about a firearms trainer - shooting instructor - who was trying to teach a lady who actually hated guns how to use one (her husband talked her into attending the class.) She told him she would never actually shoot at another human being, and that is why she couldn't hit the target, even close up. He asked her to think about being at a service station, putting gas into her vehicle, and then walking to the attendant to pay. As she walks back to her vehicle, she sees a man unbuckle her three year old daughter from her car seat and throw her into his van. The trainer asked her what she would do. If she saw this happening and was armed with a gun, would she use it? The lady became almost enraged thinking of some stranger, some pederast snatching her child, and said she would kill him, with her bare hands if that were all she had. Not being completely in denial, she realized she could indeed shoot in such a circumstance, and decided she needed to learn how to handle a firearm after all. She became quite proficient with her weapon, dedicated to developing her ability to defend her loved ones, as she wouldn't have merely to defend herself.

So, emulating the English is something to devoutly wish does not happen. However, if those who are pushing us to "think globally", who want us to become a clone of European society, have their way, it could be our future. Where we will be jailed for resisting anyone who invades our home, even the street trash who feel safe invading our homes. The ones without badges and the ones with badges.



Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The Firearms Freedom Act and the Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



The Tenth Amendment speaks to the fact that the Founders of our nation, our Republic, intended that the Federal government be limited in scope and power. It reiterated the intent that the people, and through them their own individual state, possessed all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government, the "United States". Please remember that the"United States" were so called because the states joined together to accomplish some limited goals that were more easily realized in concert than separately. There was never any wish to relegate complete control to a central government (except perhaps by a few misguided, elitist individuals such as Alexander Hamilton.)


The Federal government, as all governments do when let off the leash by a lazy, distracted and unsuspecting citizenry, seeks to grow its power, to control all that it can. Because of this fact, the weakly written Commerce Clause has been interpreted by politicians and Presidents to mean that anything they wish can be controlled by the Federal government.


It was bad enough when the Federal government applied it to all items which physically moved between states, but since before WWII it has been applied to anything you do. Farmers who grew wheat and raised livestock and grew personal gardens all for their own personal use were harassed, arrested and convicted under the Commerce Clause. IIRC, the justification was that they were depriving the economy of other food producers in other states by not purchasing their produce, instead consuming their own. This continues to this day. The FDA and the Department of Agriculture can control what you grow and what you consume of and on your own property. Personal vegetable gardens, goats and cows kept for personal consumption of their milk and meat and offspring, wheat grown to make only your own bread or pasta.


Recently, several states - including the beautiful state of Montana where I currently am residing - have passed legislation, signed by their governor, which codifies that a firearm produced entirely within the state and kept only within that state is not subject to any Federal firearm laws. Montana was the first to pass such a law.


Of course, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (which many of us believe should be the name of a convenience store, not a Federal agency) is trying to convince people, and the legislature of the states involved, that Federal law supersedes state law. This may be true when considering laws that pertain to Federal powers granted by the Constitution, but as the Commerce Clause was not intended to control activities within a state that did not concern or affect other states' ability to conduct commerce with each other, it does not apply to the Firearms Freedom Act, which is entirely intrastate.


Here is a web site that speaks to this issue. Since this is a good "foot in the door" aimed at recovering some control from that which has been usurped by the Federal government, it should be supported by anyone who A) believes in "states rights", especially as written in the Constitution and reflected in the Tenth Amendment, and B) wishes to begin to curb the excesses of governmental control over ever aspect of our lives.


Please check out this web site, read conservative opinions written about the Commerce Clause and about the Tenth Amendment/states' rights. I say "conservative" because we all have heard the government's liberal, indeed socialistic interpretation of these issues: that you have no rights beyond those which the Federal government wants you to have, and only when it wants you to have them. In order to read anything other than that, you will have to force yourself to check conservative web sites which talk about the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment, which the Supreme Court is busy trashing through their social activism.


http://firearmsfreedomact.com/


Sunday, June 19, 2011

FBI/Police raid targets children


I've posted about illegitimate SWAT raids, but this one struck me as especially egregious and morally reprehensible. We've recently heard in the news about a child being killed in a raid where one of the officers fired a round which hit the little girl. Here no one was killed, fortunately, but imagine being a parent and seeing officers actually target your small children, even momentarily.

Denise Adams, 58, said seeing the red dots from the officers' targeting lasers crawl across her children's faces also has cost her faith in law enforcement. "I don't want to, but this was terrifying," she sobbed.

Per the husband , The incident destroyed his confidence in the police and his ability to sleep through the night, he said.

"They had guns on my wife, my babies. I'd like to know how they would feel -- the people in my house -- if that happened to them," he said.

What is especially disturbing is the knowledge that, due to prior court cases and the recent Supreme Court decision which dismantled the Fourth Amendment, the FBI and police will suffer no consequences whatsoever, in spite of the fact that they could have easily killed children had their trigger discipline failed.

The fact that the Supreme Court feels it has the authority to ignore one of the original amendments listed in the Bill of Rights does not make it so. The fact that the FBI, ATF, the Department of Education, county and city SWAT teams and other law enforcement entities believe it is acceptable to utilize dangerously armed officers in the service of warrants for non-violent crime is also wrong, and it will not change until American citizens demand that it change. Obviously the courts and Congress have no interest in protecting not just the rights, but the very lives of our citizens, our women and children.

As a police officer, I was involved in a number of incidents where guns were pointed at me. Had I wished, I could have easily gotten away with murder in two of the cases, by shooting the young men who had done so. In one case I knew the suspect, who actually only pointed his rifle in my direction accidentally, although it was a call where he had been pointing it at his father, who had been threatening him physically (both were adults, and the father did not live at the suspect's house.) In another, the suspect threw his gun down when he realized he was facing a police officer (responding to a loud music call where the suspect and a friend had been packaging marijuana for sale.) Had either incident been handled by SWAT, both of those young men would probably be dead. Had either of the cases been handled by the "felony cops" who seem to be so common in law enforcement these days, those men would have died.

SWAT teams in this country have looser, more violent Rules Of Engagement than do our servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan (and yes, we still have soldiers in Iraq) where they are at constant risk of being shot by AK-47, RPG (rocket-propelled grenade), and blown up by IED (improvised explosive device) or "suicide"- bombers.

We citizens have allowed it to get this bad, by not insisting to our elected representatives, our mayor, city councils, county commissioners, police chiefs and Sheriffs, that they defund and shut down any SWAT teams which abuse their authority and true purpose. SWAT should only be used in hostage situations and when responding to incidents where the suspect (s) are already armed and have a history of violence. As we saw in the Jose Guerena murder, simply being an armed citizen is not sufficient reason to use SWAT.

It is probably too late to effect a change through the usual political system, but our silence when this happens in our community makes us complicit in the continuation of this unacceptable state of affairs.

Read more: Bellevue family sues FBI over 'terrifying' raid - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_742235.html#ixzz1Pjgb7ITD

Monday, June 13, 2011

Important - Vaccinating children safely

Yes, I know, this is a far cry from my usual political content. But, if you have children or grandchildren you love, or know someone with small children, or who is about to give birth, it could be very important information. Please be patient - I get there eventually, but I want you to know my source is a good one, a lady who does her research with due diligence.

There is an author I have read extensively who is a little out of the usual genres of what I read. Her name is Jodi Picoult, and she is one of the best writers I have ever read. She takes topics of national concern - school shootings; child molestation by priest; spousal abuse; having a child, a sibling, for blood and tissue donations for another sick child - and weaves a story of the families involved, the dynamics of the relationships, and develops real characters who display the same emotions, the same struggles to understand and function, as we all go through when faced by similar dire straits. She does this so well, understands both the relationships and the issues so thoroughly, that it is both amazing and truly enlightening.

The books may seem like the literary version of "chick flicks", but to dismiss them in that fashion would be a terrible mistake. Jodi is the real thing, and what and how she writes is incredible, not to be missed if you are a thinking human being. Read her once, and you will read all she writes. She grabs you and doesn't let you go until you understand - until you know what it is to be abused, the parent of a molested child, an abused spouse, or a man falsely accused of molesting your students. (Jodi's early book, Second Glance, while ostensibly a sort of ghost story, goes into the actual practice of eugenics - and ethnic cleansing - practiced by the state of Maine , not just against the "feeble-minded" but also against the Micmacs and other Indian tribes, years before Hitler thought of it.)

Which brings us, in a roundabout way to the topic of this blog. More and more parents are concerned about the possibility of their child developing autism due to childhood vaccinations. Thimerosol, a mercury compound present in some vaccinations is thought to be one culprit. Recently the CDC (IIRC) [edit: actually the NIH] has poo-pooed this connection, but as usual, they have politicized an issue that isn't as simple as they would like to make it. Their concern for the very real possibility of an increase in childhood infections due to parental refusal to vaccinate has been made into an attempt to balance the cost of thousands of children developing autism against the cost of millions of children developing the childhood diseases prevented by the vaccinations.

Jodi, in her article about her book, says this is wrong. It is not necessary to accept making hundreds of new autistic children in order to continue the practice of vaccination. It appears to be quite possible to simply be smarter about how the vaccinations are scheduled, and to avoid the ones that contain thimerosol - which may only affect a small population of children, but most likely does affect some of them. The medical community is willing to accept the production of a number of autistic children in their need to see all children vaccinated. But parents do not need to risk that result. They can insist upon vaccinations that do not contain thimerosol. They cannot be threatened for a refusal to vaccinate if they are willing to have their child vaccinated with a safe product, one not containing thimerosol. And they should.

Here is a link to what she has to say, toward the end of her explanation for why she wrote her book House Rules, dealing with autism. Jodi says at one point:

"The proponents of the vaccine/autism link feel that there may be underlying factors that predispose one child to autism versus another – a genetic quirk, a mitochondrial disorder, an immune system sent into overdrive by too many vaccines. To them, when it comes to vaccinations, one size doesn’t fit all.

Some of these parents have gone to vaccine court. In March 2008 Hannah Poling’s family won a claim saying that her autism was most likely triggered by receiving five shots against nine illnesses in one day. Hannah had mitochondrial disease – a nerve disorder that causes autism-like symptoms and is brought on by viral illness. In Hannah’s case, the vaccines did what viruses do: they triggered the reaction. Over the past 20 years, the government has quietly paid out 900 million dollars for vaccine injuries. And in the wake of the Poling verdict, the government has called for new safety studies to see if genetics might make some kids more susceptible to vaccine injury."

Please read the entire page at the link above.

And for those of you who know I simply can't leave politics and a concern for freedom out of the equation, here is another topic: Jodi speaks to the fact that high-functioning autistics - such as those with Asperger's Syndrome - may seem to be close to normal, but their syndrome, their behavioral symptoms, still leave them at risk:

"I think the hardest thing about having Asperger’s, though, is that there are times these kids look completely normal. And then at other times, it is blatantly clear that something’s a little different. The parents of AS kids I met with worried about this, and how – in their absence – their children would be able to communicate to others. One mother told me that she’d read AS kids should carry a card in their wallets, stating that they have autism. That way if a police officer approached, the card could be handed over. But this mother also asked, if her son reached for his wallet, would the policeman wait patiently – or assume he was going for a gun, and shoot first?"

[Considering the Diallo case in New York (immigrant shot while reaching for his wallet and ID), the recent shooting of a young Marine with a wife and two young children in Tucson, AZ, and the many other instances of police over-reaction and excessive force we know of, this is a very real concern. Reg]

Saturday, June 11, 2011

the Washington Post and the rotting corpse of journalism

I put down Stephen King's latest book without finishing it when I read, out of order, his afterword in which he whines that Sarah Palin is wacky because she believes in the concept of "death panels" springing from Obamacare/The Affordable Care Act (or whatever the hell the "real" name is.) These liberals are so afraid of Palin because she challenges all of their misconceptions with easily discernible truth and logic.


If they paid attention to the state of the British National Health System - which Obamacare is modeled on - they would see that rationed care forces the system to limit the care available to us old folks who are no longer "viable, useful, productive" members of society. In Britain, if you are over fifty and can't afford private health care, you will be refused dialysis. Even if it means you will die, as many Brits needing dialysis do die, where they would live if they were being treated in our current healthcare system. Hell, prisoners in jail for life without parole can get dialysis in this country. Right now, at least. What do you want to bet they will continue to get it even when Obamacare fires up and your grandmother (my contemporary ;-) is denied?


So, these liberal fools - are you listening, Stephen? - can't help themselves. They attack Sarah Palin every chance they get, crowing about her "mistakes" and supposed ignorance, only to discover she was correct and they were wrong, as with the whole Paul Revere thing. He did indeed warn the British, trying to trick them into thinking more Minutemen were coming to fight than actually could get there.


Now the Washington Post has openly discarded any attempt at even appearing to possess any journalistic integrity, and is asking its readers to help them find something to harass Palin with, to damage her reputation. Talk about slime.

The Sarah Palin email adventure...

Through the freedom of information act, several organizations forced the
State of Alaska to release almost 25,000 emails associated with Sarah
Palin's time as Governor of Alaska.

The washington post is asking readers to help them dig through the
emails to find anything that may be scandalous or in anyway newsworthy.
This is really sad. It shows that the washington post is a very biased and
extremely desperate piece of crap.

I can't ever remember a "media" outlet going to such extremes to try
and dig up dirt on an American Citizen. And at this point, that is
what Sarah Palin is. She isn't a candidate for President, Vice President,
Senator or even dog catcher. She is just a regular person like me and you.

So what will happen if they don't find anything they can twist into dirt?
Do you think they will apologize to Palin? That will never happen, ever.
If this attempt fails they will find some other tactic to try and gather their dirty laundry.

The washington post is pathetic. One would think that what is supposed
to be a professional news organization would be able to better conceal
their irrational fears of a strong, intelligent Conservative Woman. But
they can't, they are completely out of their minds over Sarah Palin.
They are so desperate to find something, anything, to slow down
the momentum Sarah Palin is building that they are willing to sink to
even lower levels than the media has ever been to. And that's saying alot.
The media of the last few years have proven that they will lie, steal
and cheat for obama and his socialist agenda.

One of our most basic rights is freedom of the press.
The FIRST Amendment -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In this day and age, that must mean that the press is free from telling
the truth and free to kiss the ass of democrats in general and obama
specifically whenever and however they want.

Journalism is dead. It has been since the "media" gave obama a pass
on every single issue. Since they refused to report the facts about a
candidate that was unqualified and worse, had ties to some of the most radical
and dangerous people in chicago. Journalism died when the media decided
to tell us what they wanted us to hear instead of the truth.

These scumbags aren't worthy of digging through Sarah Palin's septic tank,
much less official emails of her time as Governor...

Friday, June 10, 2011

Department of Justice? Hardly.

Andrew Breitbart presents another expose of Big Government: AG Holder's support for "his people" has led to his permitting DOJ to be used for the most egregious example of reverse discrimination of which I have ever heard. I am talking about the case of Dayton, Ohio's exams for firefighter/paramedic. Breitbart's story explains the further travails and search for real justice of Dayton's city government.

I have never, in my varied medical and law enforcement careers, had any problem whatsoever when a minority individual who was as competent as I was chosen for a position over me. When I first tested for a position at the California Highway Patrol, I was #1 of the top three applicants, but a young black man who was third was hired instead. I did not fight it, did not even comment negatively upon it. I simply accepted it, not because of any ridiculous "white guilt" over what others had done to black people in the past, but because he was a young man trying to get a good job and improve his position in life, and I felt it was the employer's right to hire who they chose. As it turned out, he did not make his year's probation and CHP contacted me to see if I was still interested, at which time I was hired, spending over ten years employed by them.

What I do have a problem with - always have and always will - is when less competent or incompetent individuals are hired for positions where there are applicants much more competent and/or experienced for those positions. That happened when I applied for a position at the San Diego Sheriff's Department, back in 1982. I was informed by a friend working in Personnel at the County of San Diego that the SD had reached down below over 120 applicants better qualified simply in order to fill positions with minorities. I never discovered whether this was due to a Federal mandate connected to Federal funds, or whether it was a misguided effort on the part of the Sheriff's Dept. itself.

This situation in Dayton, OH is even worse. DOJ is trying to force them to hire "African-Americans" specifically. Ones that are not even competent to do the job, who can't even read and write with sufficient skill, to which the bigots (yes, reverse discrimination is bigotry, too) at DOJ replied that in their "experience" firefighters and paramedics didn't need to be able to write. Talk about ignorance. Not just of the failed applicants, but of these yahoos at DOJ.

Even worse, it was not sufficient that other minorities would be acceptable to Dayton, it had to be African-Americans. Does this nail Holder's bias on the head or doesn't it? Got to protect "his people", just as he openly admitted. What next? Will Obama and Holder decide to make Ebonics our national language? They obviously do not support diversity. There is no diversity in demanding that only African-Americans are acceptable. Leaves out all the Asians, Native Americans, Hispanics, etc. does it not?

Here is Breitbart's article. Read it and weep. Then dry your eyes, and get angry. Get motivated. And if the Republican Party throws away the election in 2012 as they did in 2008, get armed (if you aren't already.) You are going to need to be if you wish to survive four more years of an Obama with nothing to lose.

[Damn. I meant to include a h/t to Honourable Means at his blog, The Bonnie Blue Blog , where I first read this update on the Dayton situation.]

muslims "Taken" with sex-slavery


For those of you who like Liam Neeson, his movie "Taken" is the story of a divorced former CIA operative who quit to be near his teenage daughter, living now with her mother and wealthy step-father. The daughter talks her parents into letting her go to Europe with another teenage girl, and she is kidnapped by a Bosnian sex-slavery ring. Well-done film, with almost non-stop action. Perhaps a little bit unrealistic in the abilities of the father, but from my reading it is quite realistic in its portrayal of the current and continuing market for young women to be used as drugged, unwilling prostitutes and sex slaves in Europe, especially the muslim sections.

In a post I read today by Daniel Greenfield at his Sultan Knish blog, he spoke of a British man who faces a possible two-year prison term for stuffing pieces of ham into the shoes of muslims who were inside a mosque in Bristol, England. He then spent some time relating the seriousness of that offense against what muslims have been doing to non-muslims in the way of suicide bombers, butchers of Israeli infants and children, etc. Putting it in perspective, if you will, even if it is the religious equivalent of painting a picture of someone urinating on Jesus. (Maybe NEA can give him a grant for performance art? He's a real "ham", isn't he?)

He then related some information about a muslim woman (photo above) piously attempting to see that the men and boys of her faith were assisted in keeping true to the precepts of orthodox Islam. (Remember that we went to war to save Kuwait from Hussein's - the other Hussein - desire to annex them.) He said:

In Kuwait, a woman is taking Mohammed's role modeling seriously, by proposing to bring back sex slavery in a standardized way. The good woman proposed that Muslim countries attack Christian ones, and then seize some fifteen year old girls and sell them as sex slaves. In the name of morality of course. And over in Malaysia, the local police take that sort of thing seriously, rounding up suspected prostitutes, chaining them up and using brands on their faces and chests. But at least no one put ham in their shoes. Not that it would matter, Islam considers women sold into sexual slavery to be literally subhuman.

Here is an article about this selfless muslim woman, who merely wants to improve the lives of the men of Islam:

Muslim Woman Seeks to Revitalize the Institution of Sex-Slavery

Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On June 6, 2011 @ 2:21 pm In Muslim Persecution of Christians | 38

Comments

Last week witnessed popular Muslim preacher Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini boast about how Islam allows

Muslims to buy and sell conquered infidel women, so that “When I want a sex-slave, I go to the

market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her.”


This week’s depraved anachronism comes from a Muslim woman—political activist and former

parliamentary candidate for Kuwait’s government, Salwa al-Mutairi: She, too, seeks to “revitalize

the institution of sex-slavery.”


A brief English summary appeared in the Kuwait Times (nothing, of course, in the MSM):

Muslim men who fear being seduced or tempted into immoral behavior by the beauty

of their female servants, or even of those servants “casting spells” on them, would be

better to purchase women from an “enslaved maid” agency for sexual purposes. She

[Mutairi] suggested that special offices could be set up to provide concubines in the

same way as domestic staff recruitment agencies currently provide housemaids. “We

want our youth to be protected from adultery,” said al-Mutairi, suggesting that these

maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be

sold on later to devout merchants.


The Arabic news website, Al Arabiya, has the sordid details, including a video of Mutairi addressing

the topic of sex-slavery. I summarize and translate various excerpts below (note: I am not making

any of this up).


The Kuwaiti activist begins by insisting that “it’s of course true” that “the prophet of Islam

legitimized sex-slavery.” She recounts how when she was in Mecca, Islam’s holiest city, she asked

various sheikhs and muftis (learned, authoritative Muslims) about the legality of sex-slavery

according to Sharia: they all confirmed it to be perfectly legal; Kuwaiti ulema further pointed out

that extra “virile” men—Western synonymous include “lecherous,” “perverted,” “lust-driven”—

would do well to purchase sex-slaves to sate their appetites without sinning.


Here’s a particularly interesting excerpt from her taped speech on the rules governing sex-slaves:

A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim

state—and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid [i.e.,

jihad]. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all

forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free

women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter’s body must be covered entirely, except for

her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the bellybutton on up—

she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to

her husband, but the sex-slave—he just buys her and that’s that. So the sex-slave is

different from the free woman.


She went on to offer concrete suggestions: “For example, in the Chechnyan war, of course there

are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than

for the men to engage in forbidden sexual relations. I don’t see any problem in this, no problem at

all.”


Mutairi suggests sex-slaves be at least 15 years-old.

She further justified the institution of sex-slavery by evoking 8th century caliph, Harun Rashid—a

name some may recall from bedtime stories out of the Thousand and One Nights; a name some

may be surprised to discover politically active Muslims modeling their lives after:

“And the greatest example we have is Harun al-Rashid: when he died, he had 2,000 sex slaves—so

it’s okay, nothing wrong with it.”


Her rationale is apparently guided by a sense of efficiency, a desire for the good of society:

legalizing sex-slaves ultimately helps prevent Muslim men from sinning with Muslim women, and

thus transgressing Allah’s laws; sex-slaves provide a convenient, Sharia-compliant way of satiating

their libidinous urges.


This approach has universal precedents. For example, in the West, some seek to legalize

marijuana, arguing that many will use it anyway, and shouldn’t be punished for it by the law. In the

Muslim world, we have those who seek to legalize sex-slavery, arguing that many men can’t get

enough women, and shouldn’t be punished for it by Allah.


Such are the “nuanced” differences between the Western mindset (based on reason and universal

rights) and the Sharia mindset (based on the commands of a 7th century Arabian warlord).

Mutairi concluded by piously supplicating Allah: “Oh I truly wish this for Kuwait, Allah willing—Oh

Lord, Lord, you are bountiful.”


While she waits, Mutairi can take solace in the fact that, if sex-slavery is not institutionalized in

Kuwait, it thrives in the black markets of the Muslim world, where non-Muslim girls, especially

Christians, are routinely abducted, enslaved, and forced into lives of unspeakable degradation.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/06/muslim-woman-seeks-to-revitalizethe-

institution-of-sex-slavery/


Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Copsuckers, Mobsters and You the Citizen by Kent McManigal

Thanks to Arctic Patriot, I got a chance to read the above named article on the ZeroGov blog (Kent's was a guest-post). This connects to my last post, and amplifies what I feel about the state of law enforcement these days. It truly is becoming a police state, folks.

"Copsuckers" is a term coined to reflect people who feel that police officers can do no wrong. These are often other police officers - like Massad Ayoob, a small-town New Hampshire officer who had parlayed his business as a shooting instructor and gun magazine writer into a reputation as a law enforcement and gun expert, who never saw a police shooting he didn't like. But it also refers to citizens who have bought into the myth that the policeman is your friend. While this might have been true at one time - and some of us tried to make it true - it certainly is no longer the case. There are still officers out there who want to do the right thing, but they are becoming rare. Most simply want to enforce the law - even if it is bad law - but quite a few now want to be gunfighters, "spec-ops warriors", and killers. Any excuse to shoot something, someone's pet, or you. As I said in the last post, just look at the SWAT team's own helmet cam video of Guerena's shooting on YouTube, and you will see the illegal and immoral actions of the last cop to shoot, firing his "Me, too" bullets, probably into Jose's cooling body.

Read the article to get another look at why we are where we are now.

Americans are no longer free (and haven't been for a while now)

As usual, I lag behind on posting some serious material, something so important it is almost shameful that it wasn't done immediately upon my reading of it. It takes time for some of this to percolate through my weary old brain, and it is also a fact that sometimes I am so enraged that I simply cannot trust myself to write about it until I have had a chance to "chill".

Here I am talking about the SWAT raid upon a young black man and his small children by the Department of Education. Yes, I am not sh*tting you, it was the Federal Department of Education. They were looking for his estranged wife in connection with possible student aid fraud. They destroyed the door to his home, man-handled him into his front yard, cuffed him, and put him and his three small children into a Stockton PD patrol car for six hours, while they ransacked his house for evidence they believed his estranged wife - who no longer even lived there - might have left. Here is the original story I read from the Central Stockton News (there evidently have been some updates since then):

STOCKTON, CA - Kenneth Wright does not have a criminal record and he had no reason to believe a S.W.A.T team would be breaking down his door at 6 a.m. on Tuesday.

"I look out of my window and I see 15 police officers," Wright said.

Wright came downstairs in his boxer shorts as the officers team barged through his front door. Wright said an officer grabbed him by the neck and led him outside on his front lawn.

"He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there," Wright said.

According to Wright, officers also woke his three young children ages 3, 7, and 11, and put them in a Stockton police patrol car with him. Officers then searched his house.

As it turned out, the person law enforcement was looking for was not there - Wright's estranged wife.

"They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids," Wright said.

Wright said he later went to the mayor and Stockton Police Department, but the city of Stockton had nothing to do with Wright's search warrant.

The U.S. Department of Education issued the search and called in S.W.A.T for his wife's defaulted student loans.

"They busted down my door for this," Wright said. "It wasn't even me."

According to the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General, the case can't be discussed publicly until it is closed, but a representative confirmed the department did issue the search warrant at Wright's home.

Wednesday morning, inspector general spokeswoman Gina Burress provided the following statement:

"The Office of Inspector General does not engage in the collection of student loans. Our mission is to conduct criminal investigations related to the programs and operations of the U.S. Department of Education, which include the student financial aid programs. We can confirm that we executed a search warrant at the residence, however our policy is not to discuss details of our on-going work."

The Office of the Inspector General has a law enforcement branch of federal agents that carry out search warrants and investigations.

The Stockton Police Department said it was asked by federal agents to provide one officer and one patrol car just for a police presence when carrying out the search warrant.

Police officers did not participate in breaking Wright's door, handcuffing him, or searching his home.

"All I want is an apology for me and my kids and for them to get me a new door," Wright said.


Now, I understand that there may be more to the story. It is possible (or it may simply be an attempt by the Dept. of Education to make themselves look less horrible) that this young man may have assisted his wife in the alleged fraud. However, even if he did, even if he had been the sole perpetrator of some serious, hundred thousand dollar student aid fraud, would you feel an armed and violent SWAT response putting three small children at risk was justified? That an armed assault upon his home was warranted? Here is a post that covers the bases pretty well, posted by Alvie D. Zane at his blog, "Cliffs of Insanity" (and how appropriate in this instance): Raided for Student Loans

We have accepted the complete erosion of our rights by law enforcement. They can stop and detain us whenever they want. They can arrest us whenever they want. They can beat us whenever they want. They can take us to jail whenever they want. They can SWAT raid our house, stomp our kittens, shoot our dogs, force our pregnant wives against the wall causing them to miscarry, shoot at us 71 times (only hitting 20 times out of the 71, however), refuse to allow the paramedics into the house to treat us, so that we die, and then lie about it in public and in court. And suffer no consequences whatsoever, not even temporary embarrassment.

As we have seen in the past, they can shoot a twelve year old boy, put a bullet from a sniper rifle through the mouth and into the brain stem of his mother, who was holding her infant child, burn over 70 men women and children in the basement of their church, destroy the evidence of how those men women and children were shot at and prevented from leaving the building to give themselves up to avoid being killed, and suffer no consequences at all. Unless you consider getting promotions a consequence.

I am not a rabid cop hater. I worked for the San Diego Police Department as a police officer. I worked as a police officer in small towns in Connecticut and California, and spent over ten years with the California Highway Patrol in Communications. I worked with a lot of good cops. But I also worked with cops that were sociopaths and had no business wearing a badge. [Like Tom Riggs, who graduated in the same academy class I did at San Diego PD, and Donovan Jacobs, two racist sociopaths who abused the wrong black man one day and paid a price for it. Like Craig Peyer at the California Highway Patrol at Border Division in San Diego, who was convicted of the murder of Cara Knott.]

The use of SWAT teams has gotten completely out of control, however, and more and more citizens are paying the ultimate price for it, like Jose Guerena being killed by the Pima County (Arizona) SWAT team here recently, and now this incident where SWAT is used to effect a search of a private home for student aid fraud. Why did they use armed officers for a search warrant for a totally non-violent crime?

Back in 2004, a man named Jeff Snyder wrote an article called "Walter Mitty's Second Amendment". I think it is appropriate to include it here, because it speaks to how much of our freedom, how many of our natural rights, we have given up, allowed to be ignored/infringed/abrogated/over-ridden. I think it is obvious that what freedom we thought we had is merely an illusion. And the lack of any significant response to the Department of Education's SWAT raid has given me another reason to believe this.



Monday, June 6, 2011

The New "Dr. Death": Angel or demon?


I realize this is certain to cause some strong feelings, but I hope it is taken in the spirit offered - not trying to force agreement with my thoughts, but rather to stimulate people to examine what they believe, rather than simply cling to that belief blindly. Whether or not this changes anyone's feelings on the subject, I thank you for at least reading and considering what I have to say.

I just finished reading an article in the Jewish World Review entitled, "Meet the New Dr. Death" (Dr. Kevorkian has passed away and another doctor has been "cited" as his spiritual replacement.) It struck me that the author appeared to be criticizing the assistance provided by this doctor and the associates who help to carry out the wishes of these people choosing to end their own lives. Consequently, I sent this in an email to JWR as a comment:


Is it not more than interesting that so many in America have no difficulty accepting the killing of a fetus, the "termination of a pregnancy" which causes the death of what is absolutely certain to become a human being - even if you believe it is not a human life until birth. This killing is not done at the request of the fetus itself, of the proto-human, if you will, but by the decision and will of another, in a planned and premeditated manner. If done to any living human, it would legally, and actually, be murder. And those assisting, counseling in its favor, would indeed be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

Yet many of the same people who have no difficulty accepting and approving of the death of what would otherwise soon be a human being are unwilling to allow someone to choose his or her own death. Unwilling to allow them to seek help in ending their own personal suffering from cancer, from degenerative diseases such as ALS or Alzheimer's, which will eventually leave them helpless and perhaps even mindless, unable to have any quality of life whatsoever. These people who also wish not to be a burden to their spouse or family, who do not want to cause their spouse to end up in poverty from the expense of their illness and care. People who may cringe at the thought of years of personal care where strangers may be hired to attend to their most personal bodily functions, as they cannot.

I have been a "pro-choice" believer for most of my life. I have known people very dear to me who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy, and still feel that their choice was proper for them at the time they made that choice. I do not sit in judgment of them.

That being said, I find myself feeling more and more that it may be wrong to end life in that fashion. But then again, I find myself unable to hunt or kill animals now, and even refrain from killing most insects I come across. The Buddhist concept of "ahimsa" (which _does_ support self-defense) makes more sense to me these days. I am not against hunting, and while I would prefer people hunted only to eat the meat of their kill and not for trophies, I will not question their right to do so. I believe I could hunt again if I needed to in order to feed myself, my family, or friends.

This change in my worldview, however, does not cause me to think that it is immoral for someone to choose to do what they wish with their own life. Yes, there are times I would disapprove, as when children are affected by the death of that person, or if it leaves a spouse or family in dire straits. But that disapproval would be merely an emotional response on my part, one that I would not seek to force upon anyone else. I believe that a person's property should be theirs to do with as they please, and we own nothing as completely and as fully as our own life.

Simply because society feels it has the right to control that life - through incarceration, through forced psychiatric treatment and medication, through laws that affect what we can do with and to ourselves - does not make it right. I firmly believe it is every individual's right to decide - if they are able - the time of their own death. If they wish it to be the last possible moment, they will not seek to end it themselves. But if they _do_ wish to pick a time short of that, it is their right to do so. Getting assistance in achieving that goal should not be illegal. Coercion or force in achieving an early demise - such as happens when the State picks the time, through a court-ordered sentence of death, or the sentence of death administered by a SWAT team in your own home, should be illegal. If the State can choose to terminate our lives before we would wish to, why can we not also utilize our right to terminate our own life when we choose to do so? Which choice is more moral?