I'm sure my Lucky would be as valiant...
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Enjoy it while you can
The Internet might be blacked out for all intents if this goes through...
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/#ixzz1i8St7B3b
Will Google, Amazon, and Facebook Black Out the Net?
Published December 30, 2011 | FoxNews.com
In the growing battle for the future of the Web, some of the biggest sites online -- Google, Facebook, and other tech stalwarts -- are considering a coordinated blackout of their sites, some of the web’s most popular destinations.
No Google searches. No Facebook updates. No Tweets. No Amazon.com shopping. Nothing.
The action would be a dramatic response to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a bill backed by the motion picture and recording industries that is intended to eliminate theft online once and for all. HR 3261 would require ISPs to block access to sites that infringe on copyrights -- but how exactly it does that has many up in arms. The creators of some of the web's biggest sites argue it could instead dramatically restrict law-abiding U.S. companies -- and reshape the web as we know it.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/30/will-google-amazon-and-facebook-blackout-net/#ixzz1i8St7B3b
You HAVE got to be kidding
Concealed carry - invokes the thought of something hidden, that no one would realize you are carrying a weapon.
So, some enterprising folks want to capitalize on this.
How dumb do you have to be to wear this thing in public?
Actually, the idea is you carry the sash in a little packet, and put it on after you pull your gun. That ought to be an interesting process to watch - juggling a loaded gun in the presence of bad guys while you try to unfurl this thing and get it over your head...
H/t Sharp as a Marble who sent me here.
So, some enterprising folks want to capitalize on this.
How dumb do you have to be to wear this thing in public?
Actually, the idea is you carry the sash in a little packet, and put it on after you pull your gun. That ought to be an interesting process to watch - juggling a loaded gun in the presence of bad guys while you try to unfurl this thing and get it over your head...
H/t Sharp as a Marble who sent me here.
Government Motors forgets a slight detail
Osama's GM bailout keeps on paying dividends...
+++++++++++++++
Chevy to Recall Over 4,000 Cars to Check for Missing Brakes
Published December 30, 2011 | Associated Press
DETROIT — General Motors Co. is recalling more than 4,000 of its 2012 Chevrolet Sonic subcompact cars to check for missing brake pads.
Some Sonics could be missing an inner or outer brake pad, which could increase stopping distance. GM said there are no known crashes or injuries related to the issue.
The recall involves 4,296 of GM's 2012 Sonics sold in the U.S. Affected models are from the Orion Township, Mich., assembly plant, which makes Sonics for the U.S. and Canadian markets.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/30/chevy-to-recall-over-4000-cars-to-check-for-missing-brakes/?http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/30/chevy-to-recall-over-4000-cars-to-check-for-missing-brakes/?test=latestnews#ixzz1i7uOT03Q++++++++++++++
How in heck do you drive a car with missing brake pads and not notice it? Cars are driven off the assembly line - at least, they used to be - and even the most jaded of union workers should have noticed the excessive brake pedal travel and noise of a missing pad.
IRS hiring prisoners to do your taxes!
Almost:
While Andy was innocent of the crime of murder that got him into prison, he used his considerable financial skills to turn the tables on the corrupt warden. He learned how to be a criminal while in prison. It’s quite a story worth watching. I suggest that you watch an edited version since the language and some of the scenes are kind of rough.
Maybe these incarcerated prisoners got their inspiration from watching Shawshank.
There is just one problem. The prisoners will have access to the social security numbers of the tax returns they’re working on.
If the prisoners have access to the internet, and they have Social Security numbers at their disposal, who knows what kind of mischief they will be able to get into, especially if they have someone on the outside to help them.
It’s kind of appropriate that criminals want to work for the IRS. They’ll fit right in.
Read more: Prisoners May Be Preparing Your Tax Return | Godfather Politics
Prisoners May Be Preparing Your Tax Return
A story in USA Today reports that inmates, some of them serving life sentences, have applied to the IRS to be tax preparers. Most of them did not reveal that they were incarcerated. It’s good to know that prisoners are trying to be productive members of society. It’s kind of like Andy Dufresne in Shawshank Redemption (1994) who does the books for the warden and the prison guards.While Andy was innocent of the crime of murder that got him into prison, he used his considerable financial skills to turn the tables on the corrupt warden. He learned how to be a criminal while in prison. It’s quite a story worth watching. I suggest that you watch an edited version since the language and some of the scenes are kind of rough.
Maybe these incarcerated prisoners got their inspiration from watching Shawshank.
The inmates and ex-cons were among thousands of applicants who got the identification numbers from the IRS from September 2010 through July 2011 as the agency began phasing in a 2009 congressional mandate that requires many preparers to file tax returns electronically.
There is just one problem. The prisoners will have access to the social security numbers of the tax returns they’re working on.
If the prisoners have access to the internet, and they have Social Security numbers at their disposal, who knows what kind of mischief they will be able to get into, especially if they have someone on the outside to help them.
It’s kind of appropriate that criminals want to work for the IRS. They’ll fit right in.
Read more: Prisoners May Be Preparing Your Tax Return | Godfather Politics
Friday, December 30, 2011
Oops...
Another green disaster Osama can take credit for.
++++++++++++
The schmucks who gave these clowns $529 million of our tax money should be forced to drive these flammable hunks of junk.
++++++++++++
529 million / 239 cars = 2.25 million per car recalled. A new record?
++++++++++++
Another Obama Success Story: Electric Car Company That Received a $529M “Green” Loan Recalls Vehicles
Posted by Jammie on Dec 30, 2011 at 1:01 pm
An electric vehicle manufacturer that received a $529 million loan from the Energy Department is recalling 239 vehicles.
The Transportation Department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said Thursday that the company, Fisker Automotive, will recall its Karma vehicles made between July 1, 2011, and Nov. 3, 2011, because of a faulty electric battery component that could cause a fire.
“Within the high-voltage battery, certain hose clamps may have been positioned incorrectly during assembly. If positioned incorrectly, the batter compartment cover could interfere with the hose clamps, potentially causing a coolant leak from the cooling hose,” NHTSA said in its recall notice Thursday.
“If coolant enters the battery compartment, an electrical short could occur possibly resulting in a fire.”The Energy Department issued a $529 million loan to Fisker in April 2010 for the development of its plug-in electric vehicles.
The administration has come under fire for issuing the loan after ABC News reported in October that Fisker is making its vehicles in Finland because it could not find a contractor in America to manufacture them.That’s some bad karma.
++++++++++++
529 million / 239 cars = 2.25 million per car recalled. A new record?
Censorship?
Tell the truth, and get rewarded...
WordPress.com
barenakedislam.wordpress.com is no longer available.
This blog has been archived or suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.
For questions or concerns, contact WordPress.com Support.
For questions or concerns, contact WordPress.com Support.
Not sure about this one
New Mexico cop stops a guy with a concealed gun, arrests him for not having the required permit. He turns out to be a felon.
++++++++++++++
A recent decision of the District of New Mexico, United States v. Rodriguez, 2011 WL 6739498 (D.N.M. Dec. 8, 2011) (Browning, J.) , addresses an issue of Fourth Amendment law that touches on Second Amendment concerns: In a concealed carry state, does police observation that a person is in possession of a concealed weapon create “reasonable suspicion” justifying a stop and frisk for a potential violation of the state’s concealed carry law? The court concludes that it does, although that conclusion strikes me as incorrect.
The facts of the case are complicated, but here are the basics. A local 911 dispatcher received a call from a woman who reported that she had just seen two employees of a convenience store show their handguns to each other while inside the store. The caller indicated that both of the employees were carrying the guns on their persons. Officer Munoz was dispatched to the convenience store, which was located in a high-crime neighborhood and which Munoz had visited in response to police calls many times before. Munoz entered the store and saw an employee restocking some products. When the employee bent over one of the shelves, the officer could see a handgun tucked in the waistband of the back of his pants. The officer asked the employee to step outside, and he grabbed the gun from the employee’s waistband for officer safety purposes. Once outside, the officer asked the employee if he had a permit to carry the gun. The employee, Rodriguez, said he did not. The gun turned out to be a loaded Smith and Wesson .357 magnum revolver. The officer arrested the employee for violating New Mexico law on carrying a concealed loaded firearm, which states in relevant part:
++++++++++++++
Read the whole thing.
The question is - were the police justified in stopping the guy simply because he had a gun?
I am not sure about the law in New Mexico if the "concealed" gun becomes exposed. Some states make that an offense in itself. If this was the case, the officer's actions would be justified.
In Wisconsin, open carry is legal, as is concealed carry if you have a permit. The law is silent about "flashing" the weapon inadvertently.
Will we have a similar case here? Time will tell.
H/t Alphecca
++++++++++++++
Does Concealed Gun Give Cops Right to Search You?
Submitted by The Volokh Conspiracy on Dec 28, 2011
By Orin KerrA recent decision of the District of New Mexico, United States v. Rodriguez, 2011 WL 6739498 (D.N.M. Dec. 8, 2011) (Browning, J.) , addresses an issue of Fourth Amendment law that touches on Second Amendment concerns: In a concealed carry state, does police observation that a person is in possession of a concealed weapon create “reasonable suspicion” justifying a stop and frisk for a potential violation of the state’s concealed carry law? The court concludes that it does, although that conclusion strikes me as incorrect.
The facts of the case are complicated, but here are the basics. A local 911 dispatcher received a call from a woman who reported that she had just seen two employees of a convenience store show their handguns to each other while inside the store. The caller indicated that both of the employees were carrying the guns on their persons. Officer Munoz was dispatched to the convenience store, which was located in a high-crime neighborhood and which Munoz had visited in response to police calls many times before. Munoz entered the store and saw an employee restocking some products. When the employee bent over one of the shelves, the officer could see a handgun tucked in the waistband of the back of his pants. The officer asked the employee to step outside, and he grabbed the gun from the employee’s waistband for officer safety purposes. Once outside, the officer asked the employee if he had a permit to carry the gun. The employee, Rodriguez, said he did not. The gun turned out to be a loaded Smith and Wesson .357 magnum revolver. The officer arrested the employee for violating New Mexico law on carrying a concealed loaded firearm, which states in relevant part:
30–7-2. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon.It turned out that the employee had a felony record, and he was therefore charged in federal court with being a felon in possession. He has here challenged the “stop and frisk” which lead to the exchange in which Rodriguez acknowledged that he had no permit, thus leading to his arrest. Whether the “stop” was lawful depends on whether the officers had “reasonable suspicion,” based on specific and articulable facts, that the employee was engaged in illegal activity. Whether the frisk that retrieved the gun was lawful depends on whether the officers had specific and articulable facts that the suspect was armed and dangerous.
A. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon consists of carrying a concealed loaded firearm or any other type of deadly weapon anywhere, except in the following cases: . . . by a person in possession of a valid concealed handgun license issued to him by the department of public safety pursuant to the provisions of the Concealed Handgun Carry Act [29–19-1 NMSA 1978].
B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the carrying of any unloaded firearm.
C. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
++++++++++++++
Read the whole thing.
The question is - were the police justified in stopping the guy simply because he had a gun?
I am not sure about the law in New Mexico if the "concealed" gun becomes exposed. Some states make that an offense in itself. If this was the case, the officer's actions would be justified.
In Wisconsin, open carry is legal, as is concealed carry if you have a permit. The law is silent about "flashing" the weapon inadvertently.
Will we have a similar case here? Time will tell.
H/t Alphecca
Danger! Concealed Carry!
Well, the New York Times claims so, anyway...
++++++++++++++
Scare tactics are all they have left - the statistics speak for themselves.
++++++++++++++
According to the New York Times, the answer seems to be “yes.” An article in yesterday’s Times by Michael Luo collects some anecdotes about misbehavior by a few licensees in North Carolina. The Times article has some numbers in it, and it provides the number of North Carolinians with carry permits (240,000). After a thorough search of North Carolina records, the Times finds that about 1% of permitees were convicted of something, other than a traffic offense, over the past five years. Of these 2,400 convictions, by far the largest group is “nearly 900 permit holders were convicted of drunken driving, a potentially volatile circumstance given the link between drinking and violence.”
“Drunk driving” (which, I would guess, the Times uses as a shorthand for lesser offenses such as driving while impaired) is a serious crime in itself. But just because a woman has three glasses of wine with dinner at a restaurant, and then gets caught in a police checkpoint, doesn’t make her some “potentially volatile” person who is going to murder somebody in an inebriated rage.
In any large population (e.g., 240,000) there will be at least a small percentage who over a period of time are found guilty of some crimes. This does not mean that that population as a whole is dangerous. It would have been useful to compare the conviction rates of North Carolinians who have carry licenses with the convictions rates of those who do not. I suspect that the non-licensee crime rate would be much higher, especially for violent gun crimes.
In a 2009 article in the Connecticut Law Review, I collected data from Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida. (The state data begin on page 564 of the article.) The data show that concealed carry licensees are much more law-abiding than the general population, and that the rate of gun misuse of any sort (let alone having something to do with violence in public place) is less than one in one thousand.
Instapundit collects some other responses to the Times’ effort to foment hysteria and prejudice against the persons who exercise the constitutional right to carry firearms for lawful protection.
[This post was corrected in response to reader comments, including the fact that I wrongly wrote that the Times had not reported the total number of licensees.]
++++++++++++++“Drunk driving” (which, I would guess, the Times uses as a shorthand for lesser offenses such as driving while impaired) is a serious crime in itself. But just because a woman has three glasses of wine with dinner at a restaurant, and then gets caught in a police checkpoint, doesn’t make her some “potentially volatile” person who is going to murder somebody in an inebriated rage.
In any large population (e.g., 240,000) there will be at least a small percentage who over a period of time are found guilty of some crimes. This does not mean that that population as a whole is dangerous. It would have been useful to compare the conviction rates of North Carolinians who have carry licenses with the convictions rates of those who do not. I suspect that the non-licensee crime rate would be much higher, especially for violent gun crimes.
In a 2009 article in the Connecticut Law Review, I collected data from Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida. (The state data begin on page 564 of the article.) The data show that concealed carry licensees are much more law-abiding than the general population, and that the rate of gun misuse of any sort (let alone having something to do with violence in public place) is less than one in one thousand.
Instapundit collects some other responses to the Times’ effort to foment hysteria and prejudice against the persons who exercise the constitutional right to carry firearms for lawful protection.
[This post was corrected in response to reader comments, including the fact that I wrongly wrote that the Times had not reported the total number of licensees.]
Scare tactics are all they have left - the statistics speak for themselves.
Under the radar
Eternal vigilance...
+++++++++++++++++
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/28/president-obamas-anti-gun-agenda-shows-no-sign-stopping/#ixzz1i16cd8w9+++++++++++++++++
One more Supreme Court justice - and Osama wins the battle.
+++++++++++++++++
President Obama's Anti-Gun Agenda Shows No Sign of Stopping
Published December 28, 2011
| FoxNews.com
President Obama keeps pushing for gun control. "I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign, this past spring.
His push as been quiet but relentless.
Just this past week Obama signaled that he was going to just ignore two new parts of the 2012 Omnibus Spending bill. Although he signed the spending bill into law, he simultaneously issued a so-called "signing statement," a note that presidents have started attaching to legislation stating how they interpret the law they are signing or whether they believe part of it is unconstitutional.
Obama’s statement claimed that Congress couldn’t put restrictions on how he wanted to spend to fund lobbying for gun control and the National Institute of Health studies of gun control.
But why should the federal government use taxpayer dollars to pay for lobbying?
Obama has had numerous false starts on gun control. Just in November, his administration moved to ban target practice on public lands, but the opposition was so swift and strong they immediately backtracked.
A couple of weeks ago the Obama administration suffered another embarrassment. It was discovered that the Obama administration oversaw the sale of guns to Mexican drug gangs in its Fast & Furious program to bolster statistics of guns crossing over to the border to these very drug gangs.
This scandal is quite incredible as the Obama administration ordered gun dealers to make sales to Mexican drug gangs against their wishes to help the administration’s push for more gun control. And this follows the revelation in July that the Obama administration had pushed federal agents involved in the Fast & Furious scandal to support gun control regulations during their congressional testimony.
It doesn’t help that the Obama administration started pushing these sales at the same time they wanted to bolster their case that America was supply illegal guns to Mexico backfired. All this undercut any justification for new regulations and destroyed any support that they might have had.
With 90 congressmen signing a "no confidence" resolution in Attorney General Eric Holder’s handling of “Fast & Furious,” last week Holder lashed out against his critics. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American,” Holder told the New York Times. Holder seems unwilling to recognize the genuine outrages the administration’s gun-control agenda has produced.
Still the administration has successfully manage to push through gun control regulations in many, less visible ways: -- The Obama administration instituted a ban on importing "historic" semi-automatic rifles into the US. -- In sharp contrast to the Bush administration, President Obama strongly supports the UN Arms Trade Treaty even though he knows that any such treaty are unlikely to obtain the two-thirds vote in the Senate needed for ratification. What the regulations will do is lead to severe restrictions on private gun ownership around the world.
The administration instituted new rules on selling "high-powered rifles," defined as a caliber of greater than .22. --
The administration nominated Andrew Traver, someone who supports gun bans, as the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Obama has stuck by Traver despite his nomination being stalled in the Senate for a year and the fierce opposition it has generated.
Obama’s most lasting impact on gun control is likely to be through the federal court judges he appoints. His most visible appointments have been the gun-control advocates he has made to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan headed up President Clinton’s push for gun control when she worked for his White House during the 1990s. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor has signed on to a Supreme Court opinion stating that there is no individual right to "private self-defense" with guns.
The pro-gun control views of Obama’s nominees have played a role the Senate filibustering of two Appeals Court nominees. Caitlin Joan Halligan was particularly controversial when nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because she opposes an individual’s right to self defense and – even more damning -- she was one of the trial lawyers who had sued gun makers. Thus in New York v. Sturm & Ruger, she argued that gun makers should be liable for the criminal acts of third parties but not given any credit for the benefits from self-defense.
If elected to a second term, Obama will end up appointing over half the federal judges. That sure can make a big difference.
Most importantly, the Supreme Court is only one vote away from reversing the 5 to 4 decisions that so narrowly struck down the handgun bans in Chicago and the District of Columbia.
Two of the Justices who voted to strike down the bans, conservative Antonin Scalia and moderate Anthony Kennedy, will be well into their 80s during the next administration.
While a couple of Justices have made it to 90 while serving on the court, remember the rare glimpse into Obama’s views during the 2008 campaign when he referred to those “bitter” Americans who “cling to their guns, cling to their religion.”
It surely fits his earlier statement: “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”
Yet, despite all this evidence of an anti-gun agenda, recent articles by the Associated Press and other news media paint Obama as a moderate on guns and as somebody who wants to "protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens” and merely support so-called “gun safety” measures.
Of course, they are wrong. Unfortunately, Obama’s patient “under the radar” campaign seems to be working. He is fundamentally changing the courts and leaving them much more hostile to gun ownership. If Americans catch on, this could still be a major issue in the 2012.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/28/president-obamas-anti-gun-agenda-shows-no-sign-stopping/#ixzz1i16cd8w9+++++++++++++++++
One more Supreme Court justice - and Osama wins the battle.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The Brady Bunch's creative math
The Brady Bunch routinely reports to us on how many people, including police officers, are "victims of gun violence" every year. "Gun violence" that is directly caused by our "lax gun laws" that allow "anyone" to obtain a gun.
Except - they lie:
+++++++++++++++++++++
A little digging uncovered the following from brief narratives on the NLEOMF site:
Each death or injury makes their mouth water with anticipation of more Draconian gun restrictions.
The truth wouldn't further their goals.
Except - they lie:
+++++++++++++++++++++
A little digging uncovered the following from brief narratives on the NLEOMF site:
· Probation Officer Tiffany Bishop was accidentally shot and killed while participating in a departmental training exercise. Officer Bishop is the 53rd law enforcement fatality caused by gunfire in 2011.
· Police Officer Geoffrey Breitkopf was shot and killed while attempting to arrest a knife-wielding suspect. Officer Breitkopf is the second police officer from the Nassau County (NY) Police Department to be killed in 2011. He is also the 19th law enforcement officer to be killed by gunfire in 2011. According to the Officer Down website, “Police Officer Geoffrey Breitkopf was accidentally shot and killed after being mistaken for a suspect by another police officer.”
· Hundreds of officers, family and friends filled Cathedral of Mary Our Queen in North Baltimore for the funeral for Baltimore police Officer William H. Torbit Jr., who was shot and killed Jan. 9 when four of his fellow officers mistook him for a suspect during a fight outside a club near downtown.—Baltimore Sun
· Sergeant Paul Stuckey was fatally shot while responding to reports of night hunting in West Feliciana Parish.
Sergeant Stuckey had notified his supervisor at approximately 2:15 am that he had received a report that someone was hunting near St. Francisville. A fisherman located his body at daybreak at an old ferry landing along the banks of the Mississippi River suffering from a shotgun blast to the chest.
Investigators believe that his own shotgun may have accidentally discharged and struck him in the chest.
The Memorial Fund website, which is a tribute to the police officers, sheriff’s deputies and other law enforcement professionals who die on the job also noted the following:
· Police Officer Anthony Giniewicz died as a result of gunshot wounds sustained 26 years earlier during an exchange of gunfire with gang members. Officer Giniewicz is the tenth law enforcement fatality from the State of California in 2011.
· Police Officer David Roberts was shot in the face and partially paralyzed while assisting in the arrest of two robbery suspects in 1985. Officer Roberts succumbed to complications from a blood infection.
· Officer Tom Hayes died 31 years after he sustained a gunshot wound in the line of duty.
That’s three killed by friendly fire and one who apparently died by accidental discharge of his own firearm. Plus, three more passed away apparently from complications from gunshot wounds suffered years before.
Others who died from gunshot wounds included officers shot by wanted fugitives, armed robbers confronted in the act and frequently dangerous “domestic disturbance” participants who may, or may not, legally have firearms.
Deputy Sherri Jones was killed with her own gun after being overpowered and disarmed by a prisoner in the basement of the Bowie County, TX Courthouse.
However, trust the gun prohibition lobby, led by the Brady Center and Violence Policy Center, to throw all of these fatalities in as just a statistic and blame: a) lax gun laws, b) shall-issue concealed carry statutes, and, c) gun rights in general.
+++++++++++++++++++++Each death or injury makes their mouth water with anticipation of more Draconian gun restrictions.
The truth wouldn't further their goals.
What ever happened to "full faith and credit"?
NEW YORK — A tourist from Tennessee reportedly thought she could check her loaded gun at New York City's Sept. 11 memorial.
The New York Post says 39-year-old Meredith Graves was visiting the memorial at the World Trade Center site on Dec. 22 and noticed a sign that said "No guns allowed." The Post reports that Graves asked police where she could check her loaded pistol. She was arrested on a gun-possession charge.
Graves has a legal permit to carry a weapon in Tennessee, but New York's gun laws are stricter.
The Post says Graves posted bond and is due back in court March 19. She faces 3½ years in prison if convicted.
“You’d think states would reciprocate with the Second Amendment. She has a license to carry in Tennessee,” her mother-in-law told the Post.
The newspaper says her attorney at Legal Aid did not return phone calls.
++++++++++++++++
From Wikipedia:
Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.Not to mention the Second Amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Both New York City and the state have a long sick history of infringement, going back to the Sullivan Act, that was enacted to keep "swarthy immigrants" from owning weapons.
When will the Supreme Court finally hear a case like this, and render the correct decision - that ALL gun control laws and restrictions are null and void?
Not holding my breath. Perhaps after we get rid of Osama and regain control of Congress.
Time to cull the wolves
The federal government has usurped the state's rights to regulate animal populations for decades via the Endangered Species Act - join the fight to get some of those rights restored.
Poll and petition here.
Poll and petition here.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Assault with pizza
Schools are going absolutely nuts with the politically-correct idea that the very idea of a firearm is a threat to safety.
Source
You would think that Nashville would have smarter and more realistic teachers in their schools than someplace like Chicago or Milwaukee. Just proves how far PC rot has penetrated our country.
Source
You would think that Nashville would have smarter and more realistic teachers in their schools than someplace like Chicago or Milwaukee. Just proves how far PC rot has penetrated our country.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Charlie Brown turns Muslim
Evidently, this video at "Denis Leary on WhoSay" offends some folks:
You might not want to play this one at work, or in front of the kids...
You might not want to play this one at work, or in front of the kids...
Sustainability
A Wisconsin website with all the answers.
Sustainability sounds like such a good idea - we all want to be able to keep our standard of living and such, right?
The problem is in the definition - "sustainability" is defined as doing everything in a way so as to meet the standards of people who know better than we do what is "good" for us and for the planet.
Example - from the "Energy and Climate Change" link:
Sustainability sounds like such a good idea - we all want to be able to keep our standard of living and such, right?
The problem is in the definition - "sustainability" is defined as doing everything in a way so as to meet the standards of people who know better than we do what is "good" for us and for the planet.
Example - from the "Energy and Climate Change" link:
What is Energy & Climate Change? Climate change is the long-term, significant change in the temperature, weather patterns, glaciation, and related aspects of the global climate system. It is sometimes misnamed “global warming.” Global climate has changed several times in earth history, but the current change differs from previous ones primarily because it is now generally agreed that human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, is a primary cause of this change. Energy is linked to climate change via the fossil fuels being burned because they produce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which acts like a blanket in the atmosphere to keep heat in, thus raising the average global temperature.It sounds so plausible - until you find out that the only ones who "generally agree" that human activity is responsible are the Agenda 21 types who think the Earth would be better off with about 80% of the population eliminated...
A waste of money for nothing
Subject: "A gift of peace and safety"
++++++++++++++++++
Dear Chuck,
You and WAVE have had a long and challenging 2011. We’ve faced an all-out drive by our opponents to make Wisconsin a place where loaded weapons in public are an everyday occurrence.
If they had their way, danger would lurk around every corner. We’d face the risk of gun violence erupting in the bars where we socialize, the stores where we shop, the restaurants where we eat, even the playgrounds where our children play.
But, you’ve helped WAVE push back hard against that dire view of Wisconsin’s future. And now a generous supporter has stepped up to match every donation we receive by December 31, up to $20,000. We need your year-end financial support today to take full advantage and help carry our work into 2012.
Make a tax-deductible donation of $25 or more toward preventing gun violence, and, if you give before the end of the year, it will be matched dollar-for-dollar.
Since Governor Walker and the gun lobby forced through “guns in public” legislation, you and WAVE have taken the initiative. Over 150 communities in every corner of our state have decided to keep guns out of public buildings. Thousands of people have signed WAVE’s “SAFE WISCONSIN” pledge urging businesses to post “no guns allowed” signs.
And, as businesses and communities continue deciding whether they’ll respect our safety or bow to the “guns anywhere” agenda, your donation will make sure the voice of our majority is heard loud and clear in the weeks and months to come.
With your help, we’ll do whatever it takes to keep our families and communities free of gun violence in the year ahead.
Commit to helping keep Wisconsin safe. Make a generous, tax-deductible year-end donation before the December 31 deadline to have it matched and doubled.
Thanks so much for all you have done to support our mission and for what I am certain will be a generous response to this urgent year-end request.
In Peace,
Jeri Bonavia
WAVE Executive Director
Photo Credit, Einzelne brennende Kerze, 2009
Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort Educational Fund is Wisconsin's only statewide grassroots organization solely dedicated to reducing gun violence, injuries and deaths. Through research, education and advocacy, WAVE raises awareness about firearm violence, provides up to date information to the public and to policy makers, and promotes common sense gun violence prevention measures.
WAVE Educational Fund is mindful of the number of emails we send, but if you would like to stop receiving our messages, click here to unsubscribe.
++++++++++++++++++
How many weak-minded people will donate to this cause, so they can "feel safe" when they enter gun-free criminal friendly zones?
Again with "gun violence". Totally ignoring the facts of criminal behavior, and reality.
The best anti-gun-violence tactic I know of is the proper application of legal gun violence to those attacking, to end the attack. If the perpetrator gets hurt or killed in the process, well, they asked for it by initially offering violence in furtherance of a crime.
So far, in my travels around Beloit, I've noticed a dearth of "no guns" signs on businesses I frequent - but then again, I don;t have much desire or reason to enter the kinds of places that would be liable to post - with the exceptions of governmental offices, where I occasionally have business with my employees. It's a comfort that my workers at the Town of Beloit saw reason and refused to post their offices.
++++++++++++++++++
Dear Chuck,
You and WAVE have had a long and challenging 2011. We’ve faced an all-out drive by our opponents to make Wisconsin a place where loaded weapons in public are an everyday occurrence.
If they had their way, danger would lurk around every corner. We’d face the risk of gun violence erupting in the bars where we socialize, the stores where we shop, the restaurants where we eat, even the playgrounds where our children play.
But, you’ve helped WAVE push back hard against that dire view of Wisconsin’s future. And now a generous supporter has stepped up to match every donation we receive by December 31, up to $20,000. We need your year-end financial support today to take full advantage and help carry our work into 2012.
Make a tax-deductible donation of $25 or more toward preventing gun violence, and, if you give before the end of the year, it will be matched dollar-for-dollar.
Since Governor Walker and the gun lobby forced through “guns in public” legislation, you and WAVE have taken the initiative. Over 150 communities in every corner of our state have decided to keep guns out of public buildings. Thousands of people have signed WAVE’s “SAFE WISCONSIN” pledge urging businesses to post “no guns allowed” signs.
And, as businesses and communities continue deciding whether they’ll respect our safety or bow to the “guns anywhere” agenda, your donation will make sure the voice of our majority is heard loud and clear in the weeks and months to come.
With your help, we’ll do whatever it takes to keep our families and communities free of gun violence in the year ahead.
Commit to helping keep Wisconsin safe. Make a generous, tax-deductible year-end donation before the December 31 deadline to have it matched and doubled.
Thanks so much for all you have done to support our mission and for what I am certain will be a generous response to this urgent year-end request.
In Peace,
Jeri Bonavia
WAVE Executive Director
Photo Credit, Einzelne brennende Kerze, 2009
Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort Educational Fund is Wisconsin's only statewide grassroots organization solely dedicated to reducing gun violence, injuries and deaths. Through research, education and advocacy, WAVE raises awareness about firearm violence, provides up to date information to the public and to policy makers, and promotes common sense gun violence prevention measures.
WAVE Educational Fund is mindful of the number of emails we send, but if you would like to stop receiving our messages, click here to unsubscribe.
How many weak-minded people will donate to this cause, so they can "feel safe" when they enter gun-free criminal friendly zones?
Again with "gun violence". Totally ignoring the facts of criminal behavior, and reality.
The best anti-gun-violence tactic I know of is the proper application of legal gun violence to those attacking, to end the attack. If the perpetrator gets hurt or killed in the process, well, they asked for it by initially offering violence in furtherance of a crime.
So far, in my travels around Beloit, I've noticed a dearth of "no guns" signs on businesses I frequent - but then again, I don;t have much desire or reason to enter the kinds of places that would be liable to post - with the exceptions of governmental offices, where I occasionally have business with my employees. It's a comfort that my workers at the Town of Beloit saw reason and refused to post their offices.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Self-defense
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Over five minutes in this case.
Source
All I could suggest is she probably didn't have the chance to do any practicing with her gun, or she could have shot him as he came through the door and avoided any contact with him at all.
All waiting periods that governments put on purchasing or transferring weapons, like the 48-hour wait Wisconsin requires before a purchaser who has passed the Handgun Hotline background check can pick up their weapon do is put people like this woman at risk of their lives.
Source
All I could suggest is she probably didn't have the chance to do any practicing with her gun, or she could have shot him as he came through the door and avoided any contact with him at all.
All waiting periods that governments put on purchasing or transferring weapons, like the 48-hour wait Wisconsin requires before a purchaser who has passed the Handgun Hotline background check can pick up their weapon do is put people like this woman at risk of their lives.
Only in Illinois
PETA wants a "memorial plaque" to commemorate the deaths of some cows in a traffic accident.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/traffic/ct-met-getting-around-1226-20111226,0,7193674.column
Illinois law allows "relatives" to pay for memorial signs for people killed by drunks to be posted by IDOT. PETA wants the "relative" requirement waived. After all, a germ is a rat is a human...
Are Illinois' "leaders" are loopy enough to do it? We will see how this one goes.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/traffic/ct-met-getting-around-1226-20111226,0,7193674.column
Illinois law allows "relatives" to pay for memorial signs for people killed by drunks to be posted by IDOT. PETA wants the "relative" requirement waived. After all, a germ is a rat is a human...
Are Illinois' "leaders" are loopy enough to do it? We will see how this one goes.
The true face of "Recall Walker"
I just came back from an errand - took my wife to the store for some groceries.
When I pulled out of the lot on to the road we live on, a silver or grey Chevy was about half a mile east of me. He was going considerably faster than the 40 MPH limit, as he came right up on my bumper and started gesturing. I guess accelerating to 35 in the time he got on my ass was just too slow for him.
The road to the store is about a quarter mile west of us - a left turn. I signaled the turn, and this person decides to pass me on the left - half on and half off the road. He cut back in front of me as close as he dared, obviously trying to intimidate me. After he got ahead of me, he made one of those exaggerated shrugs with both hands up, as if to say, "what do you expect me to do - slow down for YOU?".
It all became reasonable behavior when I saw the big red "RECALL WALKER" bumper sticker on the trunk of his car.
Of course he was right in speeding, passing illegally and dangerously, and trying to scare me - he's a DEMONRAT! Reasonable rules don't apply to him! He would probably claim I provoked him, seeing as I have a couple of gun rights and right-wing political stickers on my car.
I wonder what his reaction would have been if he had caused an accident - and I got out of my car with my Glock on my hip? Probably would have tried to get the insurance to pay his cleaning bill, too.
When I pulled out of the lot on to the road we live on, a silver or grey Chevy was about half a mile east of me. He was going considerably faster than the 40 MPH limit, as he came right up on my bumper and started gesturing. I guess accelerating to 35 in the time he got on my ass was just too slow for him.
The road to the store is about a quarter mile west of us - a left turn. I signaled the turn, and this person decides to pass me on the left - half on and half off the road. He cut back in front of me as close as he dared, obviously trying to intimidate me. After he got ahead of me, he made one of those exaggerated shrugs with both hands up, as if to say, "what do you expect me to do - slow down for YOU?".
It all became reasonable behavior when I saw the big red "RECALL WALKER" bumper sticker on the trunk of his car.
Of course he was right in speeding, passing illegally and dangerously, and trying to scare me - he's a DEMONRAT! Reasonable rules don't apply to him! He would probably claim I provoked him, seeing as I have a couple of gun rights and right-wing political stickers on my car.
I wonder what his reaction would have been if he had caused an accident - and I got out of my car with my Glock on my hip? Probably would have tried to get the insurance to pay his cleaning bill, too.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Early Christmas present
The mail today contained a letter from the Wisconsin Department of Justice - my CCW license.
Merry Christmas, all!
Chuck
Merry Christmas, all!
Chuck
Friday, December 23, 2011
Workaround ro SOPA
Don't like CONgress voting to limit your web browsing with the "Stop Online Piracy Act"?
If you run Firefox, get the DeSopa plugin, and defeat Homeland Security!
I just did!
Read all about it:
Firefox, which already boasts an outspoken stance against SOPA, and has already shown they are willing to stand by add-on developers who create circumvention extensions designed to go around measures currently employed by Homeland Security, has welcomed a new add-on, one that is designed to circumvent whatever SOPA website blacklists that are created, provided the bills become law.
Working much like the MAFIAAFire Redirector extension, the DeSopa add-on was developed by Tamer Rizk, and designed with SOPA circumvention in mind. Naturally, the idea behind the add-on is to be in defiance of the oft-maligned protection act. This even includes the extension’s name, “DeSopa,” which is short for, “DNS Evasion to Stop Oppressive Policy in America.” On the extension’s page, there’s also a multiple paragraph manifesto of sorts, detailing the developer’s stance.
An example:
The sad things is, if you were to point these shortcomings out to the government officials who support SOPA/PIPA, there’s a strong possibility it would get ignored, or they would pass it anyway and worry about the details later.
As far as the inevitable backlash that DeSopa will probably get from concerned government officials, keep in mind, Mozilla has already outspokenly stood by the MAFIAAFire Redirector, so I would expect the same when it comes to DeSopa.
If you run Firefox, get the DeSopa plugin, and defeat Homeland Security!
I just did!
Read all about it:
Does A Simple Firefox Add-On Make SOPA Useless?
Are browser add-ons the key to defeating SOPA?
Firefox, which already boasts an outspoken stance against SOPA, and has already shown they are willing to stand by add-on developers who create circumvention extensions designed to go around measures currently employed by Homeland Security, has welcomed a new add-on, one that is designed to circumvent whatever SOPA website blacklists that are created, provided the bills become law.
Working much like the MAFIAAFire Redirector extension, the DeSopa add-on was developed by Tamer Rizk, and designed with SOPA circumvention in mind. Naturally, the idea behind the add-on is to be in defiance of the oft-maligned protection act. This even includes the extension’s name, “DeSopa,” which is short for, “DNS Evasion to Stop Oppressive Policy in America.” On the extension’s page, there’s also a multiple paragraph manifesto of sorts, detailing the developer’s stance.
An example:
This program is a proof of concept that SOPA will not help prevent piracy. The program, implemented as a Firefox extension, simply contacts offshore domain name resolution services to obtain the IP address for any desired website, and accesses those websites directly via IP. Similar offshore resolution services will eventually maintain their own cache of websites, without blacklisting, in order to meet the demand created by SOPA.If you’ll notice, the blocked quote also contains a description of how it works and if this is all it takes to sidestep/circumvent/defeat SOPA measures — “[DeSopa] simply contacts offshore domain name resolution services to obtain the IP address for any desired website, and accesses those websites directly via IP” — then these protection acts are worth less than the paper they’re written on.
If SOPA is implemented, thousands of similar and more innovative programs and services will sprout up to provide access to the websites that people frequent. SOPA is a mistake. It does not even technically help solve the underlying problem, as this software illustrates. What it will do is give undue leverage to predatory organizations, cripple innocent third party websites, severely dampen digital innovation and negatively impact the integrity and security of the Internet.
The sad things is, if you were to point these shortcomings out to the government officials who support SOPA/PIPA, there’s a strong possibility it would get ignored, or they would pass it anyway and worry about the details later.
As far as the inevitable backlash that DeSopa will probably get from concerned government officials, keep in mind, Mozilla has already outspokenly stood by the MAFIAAFire Redirector, so I would expect the same when it comes to DeSopa.
Email from the DNC
Just got this:
++++++++++++++++
Chuck --
I wanted to share some good news with you. Today, President Obama signed into law a two month extension of the payroll tax holiday.
Our voices were heard and 160 million working Americans will be spared a $1,000 tax hike on their already tight budgets.
You made this happen. Nearly 300,000 of you fought right alongside with us.
On behalf of my Democratic colleagues, thank you for standing up for the middle class.
I wish each and every one of you a safe, happy and healthy holiday season.
Rep. Steve Israel
DCCC Chairman
++++++++++++++++
Right. "Tax holiday" - and when the holiday is over, guess who gets to pay the bills?
Merry Christmas From President Osama!
++++++++++++++++
Chuck --
I wanted to share some good news with you. Today, President Obama signed into law a two month extension of the payroll tax holiday.
Our voices were heard and 160 million working Americans will be spared a $1,000 tax hike on their already tight budgets.
You made this happen. Nearly 300,000 of you fought right alongside with us.
On behalf of my Democratic colleagues, thank you for standing up for the middle class.
I wish each and every one of you a safe, happy and healthy holiday season.
Rep. Steve Israel
DCCC Chairman
++++++++++++++++
Right. "Tax holiday" - and when the holiday is over, guess who gets to pay the bills?
Merry Christmas From President Osama!
Merry Christmas!
This is how a "religion of peace" acts.
When I see this kind of message from ANY Muslim leader, I'll begin to hope that there might be a peaceful solution in the Middle East.
When I see this kind of message from ANY Muslim leader, I'll begin to hope that there might be a peaceful solution in the Middle East.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Chevy Volt subsidies
Chevy Volt Costing Taxpayers Up to $250K Per Vehicle?
December 22, 2011
Each Chevy Volt sold thus far may have as much as $250,000 in state and federal dollars in incentives behind it – a total of $3 billion altogether, according to an analysis by James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Hohman looked at total state and federal assistance offered for the development and production of the Chevy Volt, General Motors’ plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. His analysis included 18 government deals that included loans, rebates, grants and tax credits. The amount of government assistance does not include the fact that General Motors is currently 26 percent owned by the federal government.
The Volt subsidies flow through multiple companies involved in production. The analysis includes adding up the amount of government subsidies via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle. For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries. The company was also awarded approximately $106 million for its Hamtramck assembly plant in state credits to retain jobs. The company that supplies the Volt’s batteries, Compact Power, was awarded up to $100 million in refundable battery credits (combination tax breaks and cash subsidies). These are among many of the subsidies and tax credits for the vehicle.
It’s unlikely that all the companies involved in Volt production will ever receive all the $3 billion in incentives, Hohman said, because many of them are linked to meeting various employment and other milestones. But the analysis looks at the total value that has been offered to the Volt in different aspects of production – from the assembly line to the dealerships to the battery manufacturers. Some tax credits and subsidies are offered for periods up to 20 years, though most have a much shorter time frame.
GM has estimated they’ve sold 6,000 Volts so far. That would mean each of the 6,000 Volts sold would be subsidized between $50,000 and $250,000, depending on how many government subsidy milestones are realized.
+++++++++++++++++
With all that, the damn things still retail for about $40K. I wonder how many of those 6000 were sold to actual American taxpayers...
Christmas in the dark?
Could be if the EPA isn't reined in and quick:
++++++++++++++
Go read the whole thing.
Like it or not, electricity from coal powers our economy, what Osama has left for us. He's betting on unicorn farts powering his windmills, no doubt.
++++++++++++++
Flashlights make great stocking stuffers.
by John Hayward
12/21/2011
In another triumph for government transparency, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signed the final MACT Rule last Friday, but she’s been keeping it secret until a formal announcement planned for today. MACT stands for Maximum Achievable Control Technology. It covers emission rules for various industries, controlling the technologies the EPA finds achievable in the same sense that a choke chain controls a dog.
The new MACT rules are going to come down hard on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, despite serious questions raised by critics about the EPA’s methodology for calculating costs and benefits from the rule. Many of the benefits it claims to provide already emanate from the Clean Air Act, while its project costs are deliriously underestimated, compared to independent analyses. One reason the EPA is keeping things under wraps is that it got tired of all the criticism.
How high are those costs likely to be? The Associated Press estimated that “more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to close because of the new, more stringent regulations. Another 36 plants are at risk of closing.” This will drain at least 14.7 gigawatts, “enough power for more than 11 million households,” off the grid between 2014 and 2015. The town manager of Glen Lyn, Virginia worries that his entire town might actually be wiped out when their power plant is shut down by the new rules.
The AP nevertheless assures us that “no lights will go dark,” which sounds less like a prediction than a prayer. How do we lose 14.7 gigawatts without any lights going dark?
And that’s a fairly lowball estimate of the impact from these plant closings. Last month, the Institute for Energy Research estimated that the true effect will be nearly double what the EPA estimates, or at least 28 gigawatts of generating capacity… and even that might not be the end of it. According to the Wall Street Journal, the highly respected North American Electric Reliability Corporation believes that “on top of the 38 gigawatts of generation that is already being run below normal levels or slated for early retirement, another 36 to 59 gigawatts will come offline by 2018, depending on the ‘scope and timing’ of EPA demands.” (Emphasis mine.)
So the total damage might be twice as bad as the Institute for Energy Research fears, and they’re predicting twice as much energy loss as the EPA. Building new power plants to take up the slack is not something that can be done quickly. As the Wall Street Journal explains, “there are bottlenecks in permitting, engineering, financing, and building a new plant and then tying it to the electricity networks.”
++++++++++++++Go read the whole thing.
Like it or not, electricity from coal powers our economy, what Osama has left for us. He's betting on unicorn farts powering his windmills, no doubt.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
What does $40 mean to you?
How are you spending your "tax cut" that is currently being fought over in the Senate? You know - the "tax cut" where they don't withhold all the FICA taxes they normally would - and therefore put the federal government that much further behind.
Osama wants to know - at this website:
Here's a screen shot of my submission.
Let's all tell him what $40 taken from Social Security taxes means to us.
Osama wants to know - at this website:
Here's a screen shot of my submission.
Let's all tell him what $40 taken from Social Security taxes means to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)