Here is something interesting …
It is a memo from the “chief of police” from the DC Metro police dept. But there is something interesting about it, and her. Now what you should know is that she was not “hired” by the people but appointed and confirmed by the council. (You know this isn’t the same as the District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes ordering a crowd of those against the unconstitutional DC Gun Ban to "pipe down!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0w8sdDaXDY) She was “named Chief of Metropolitan Police Department by DC Mayor Adrian Fenty”. (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1230,Q,561417,mpdcNav,,.asp) With that being said I want to compare their “statements” on the “Rogue” Supreme Court.
This is the beginning 3 paragraphs of the press release from the DC Mayor’s office - June 26, 2008
“Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced their disappointment in today’s ruling of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court ruled that District of Columbia statutes banning private handgun possession at home and requiring safe storage of firearms at home violate the Second Amendment.
“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce. “In the meantime, I have directed the Metropolitan Police Department to implement an orderly process for allowing qualified citizens to register handguns for lawful possession in their homes.”
Then it continues later by saying…
“The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home. In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies.”
Now lets view an email from the Chef of the keystone cops,
From: Lanier, Cathy (MPD) Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Subject: Supreme Court Update
Residents,
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court today struck down part of the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I wanted to drop you a note to let you know the immediate impact of this decision.
The Supreme Court's ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private residents who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. It is important that everyone know that:
a.. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department's Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed.
a.. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. (Chief of police and doesn't know the difference between automatic and semiautomatic)
a.. Third, the Supreme Court's ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home. (You know because no one ever needs to protect themselves OUTSIDE of their home)
Lastly, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, in my opinion firearms in the home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked. (Well there is a brilliant assessment. Maybe the Criminal and yourself can have a "gun build-off" to see which one gets to die. That sounds like fun. That is why people keep guns, because when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.)
I will comply with the Court's reading of the Second Amendment in its letter and spirit. At the same time, I will continue to vigorously enforce the District's other gun-related laws. I will also continue to find additional ways to protect the District's residents against the scourge of gun violence.
Residents who want additional information can visit the Metropolitan Police Website at www.mpdc.dc.gov/gunregistration. Residents with questions are encouraged to contact the Firearms Registration Section at 202-727-9490.
Sincerely,
Cathy Lanier
Chief of Police
Comparing the two statements, it seems that someone is a puppet.
Well, well, well. We have an idiot leading an idiot.
This is my translation of the statements above…
Well we know better than the Supreme Court, the NRA, the people of this country, or the founding fathers. We have read this in a book somewhere or maybe some one told us, about it while we were being brain washed in the Liberal college we attended. Either way we know that gun control works to keep our citizens safe. Even if it hasn’t worked yet, and has continued to fail every time it is tried, but it will work one day. And if you don’t agree, we don’t care. We think the Supreme Court is wrong so we are going to skirt them by only barely going along with them. We are going to re-categorize the “classification” of the guns we don’t want you to have. In fact we don’t want you to be able to protect yourself in your own home; because even if you abide by the law, you could be a Criminal and no one knows it. Also, We know better than everyone else. We have a huge, crime rate because guns are evil. And if good people have guns, they turn evil because of the gun and they kill everyone they can. We know this because we just do.
Now it is a good thing they have degrees that tell everyone they are smart, because otherwise NO ONE would ever know.
Just in case anyone was confused by what the 2nd amendment says. Lets just see what our founding fathers and others that were close to them knew about it.
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. --- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character. ---Alexander Hamilton
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. ---James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Maybe they were confuse by what the 2nd Amendment means. I mean when someone today says the same thing, sometimes word for word, they are confused. Maybe the people that wrote it were confused too.
Friday, June 27, 2008
For the Record
I wanted to go “on the record” so we can look back, and see what these idiots have said. And compare this idiocy to the truth of what will happen.
This comes on the heels of the Supreme Court decision to strike down a gun BAN in cities, and governmental enclaves.
Here is what some of the “effective” mayors all around the country are saying about the “scary decision”.
(If you want to read the decision directly from the Supreme Court with out the libtard news spin you can go to this link… http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)
San Francisco - Mayor Gavin Newsom (Big libtard idiot) – And his “brilliant” assessment of and comment on the situation is that it…"just flies in the face of reality. You just wish the Supreme Court could spend a week in public housing and then come out with this decision. It's very easy and comfortable to stand there with security guards and metal detectors and make these decisions."
Question to Mr. Newsom – Who in public housing can afford to buy a gun from a gun store anyway? And if the Supreme Court justices did spend some time in the public housing … I would assure you they would have voted for this ruling 9-0. However, since gun-control and gun bans work so well, how is the murder rate in your city? How many of the “alleged” criminal murderers, bought the gun from a legit gun shop? How many of them passed the “background check”, that you love so much?
District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty … Says this about the decision. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence."
Question to Mr. Fenty – who apparently has never ACTUALLY been to DC before. Uh… how is the “keep the guns out and murders will go away” thing working out for you there puddin? I know that since I hold the idea that “guns are not bad” and do protect good people, I am too stupid even to drool on myself. However, he doesn’t know about “Gun Town USA”. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634 ) Uh cause I am pretty sure they have a HUGE crime rate, right?
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said it was a “very frightening decision”. Uh … why? Are you afraid of the unwashed masses if they have the power to stand up to you sir? And goes on to predict “greater violence” if Chicago’s gun ban was overturned.
Uh…. Should we start calling him Forrest? He is definitely not in touch with anything other than the “greenbacks” that he gets from the political contributors.
Anne Milgram (NJ ATT. GEN.) – “We regulate the possession of handguns, we don't ban handguns. But we have strict licensing requirements, and we are prepared to maintain those requirements and vigorously enforce our laws."
I don’t know this person but she doesn’t seem too bright. When you “restrict” or “regulate” in a restrictive manner, you are round-a-bout-ly banning handguns. Now you don’t actually use that language but you are skirting it nonetheless. Which makes me wonder… who can have them?
New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg – (another big libtard idiot RINO) said "fighting illegal guns has nothing to do with the Second Amendment rights of Americans." And that local authorities "have a responsibility to crack down on illegal guns and punish gun criminals, and it is encouraging that the Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of reasonable regulations."
Wow, did no one ever tell him that illegal means “outside of the law” or in “contradiction of the law” or “against the law”. Now what does making more LAWS help with ILLEGAL stuff? Start cracking down there … stud-muffin. Stop making the law abiding citizens VICTIMS. Laws are followed by law abiding citizens. Criminals break the law. Criminals don’t respect the laws we have now… what is one more? But I guess billionaires don’t have to think much.
You also have many people that have lost loved ones by the “evil gun” with no mention of the Criminal that did the Killing of course. If guns weren’t here we would still have little Johnny… Uh has anyone ever been killed with anything other than a gun? Apparently not.
Hoplophobia seems to be running rampant these days.
And then there are a lot of the usual mantra like “there will be blood running in the streets”. Just like what the guys that want to take your guns say every time there is a CCW law up for passage. And you know once they pass, NO BLOOD… go figure.
Now a question to all of them … do they carry a firearm? Or do they have body guards that have them? Why the double standard? Why are they exempt from the bans? Why when the average joe can’t get a permit to buy, or carry, they are allowed to have them?
Anyone know why the 2nd amendment was written? Any one know what was going on at the time? Anyone read plain English of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Any one think that our government really cares what happens to us, if that doesn’t include getting to the poles to vote for them? Funny huh?
This comes on the heels of the Supreme Court decision to strike down a gun BAN in cities, and governmental enclaves.
Here is what some of the “effective” mayors all around the country are saying about the “scary decision”.
(If you want to read the decision directly from the Supreme Court with out the libtard news spin you can go to this link… http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)
San Francisco - Mayor Gavin Newsom (Big libtard idiot) – And his “brilliant” assessment of and comment on the situation is that it…"just flies in the face of reality. You just wish the Supreme Court could spend a week in public housing and then come out with this decision. It's very easy and comfortable to stand there with security guards and metal detectors and make these decisions."
Question to Mr. Newsom – Who in public housing can afford to buy a gun from a gun store anyway? And if the Supreme Court justices did spend some time in the public housing … I would assure you they would have voted for this ruling 9-0. However, since gun-control and gun bans work so well, how is the murder rate in your city? How many of the “alleged” criminal murderers, bought the gun from a legit gun shop? How many of them passed the “background check”, that you love so much?
District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty … Says this about the decision. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence."
Question to Mr. Fenty – who apparently has never ACTUALLY been to DC before. Uh… how is the “keep the guns out and murders will go away” thing working out for you there puddin? I know that since I hold the idea that “guns are not bad” and do protect good people, I am too stupid even to drool on myself. However, he doesn’t know about “Gun Town USA”. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634 ) Uh cause I am pretty sure they have a HUGE crime rate, right?
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said it was a “very frightening decision”. Uh … why? Are you afraid of the unwashed masses if they have the power to stand up to you sir? And goes on to predict “greater violence” if Chicago’s gun ban was overturned.
Uh…. Should we start calling him Forrest? He is definitely not in touch with anything other than the “greenbacks” that he gets from the political contributors.
Anne Milgram (NJ ATT. GEN.) – “We regulate the possession of handguns, we don't ban handguns. But we have strict licensing requirements, and we are prepared to maintain those requirements and vigorously enforce our laws."
I don’t know this person but she doesn’t seem too bright. When you “restrict” or “regulate” in a restrictive manner, you are round-a-bout-ly banning handguns. Now you don’t actually use that language but you are skirting it nonetheless. Which makes me wonder… who can have them?
New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg – (another big libtard idiot RINO) said "fighting illegal guns has nothing to do with the Second Amendment rights of Americans." And that local authorities "have a responsibility to crack down on illegal guns and punish gun criminals, and it is encouraging that the Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of reasonable regulations."
Wow, did no one ever tell him that illegal means “outside of the law” or in “contradiction of the law” or “against the law”. Now what does making more LAWS help with ILLEGAL stuff? Start cracking down there … stud-muffin. Stop making the law abiding citizens VICTIMS. Laws are followed by law abiding citizens. Criminals break the law. Criminals don’t respect the laws we have now… what is one more? But I guess billionaires don’t have to think much.
You also have many people that have lost loved ones by the “evil gun” with no mention of the Criminal that did the Killing of course. If guns weren’t here we would still have little Johnny… Uh has anyone ever been killed with anything other than a gun? Apparently not.
Hoplophobia seems to be running rampant these days.
And then there are a lot of the usual mantra like “there will be blood running in the streets”. Just like what the guys that want to take your guns say every time there is a CCW law up for passage. And you know once they pass, NO BLOOD… go figure.
Now a question to all of them … do they carry a firearm? Or do they have body guards that have them? Why the double standard? Why are they exempt from the bans? Why when the average joe can’t get a permit to buy, or carry, they are allowed to have them?
Anyone know why the 2nd amendment was written? Any one know what was going on at the time? Anyone read plain English of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Any one think that our government really cares what happens to us, if that doesn’t include getting to the poles to vote for them? Funny huh?
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Barrack Obama Should Be Put In Jail
I know that the modern politicians think they are above the law. I mean after all they make the law right? They also think that if we break one iota of the law; we should go to jail or pay the penalty to the fullest extent of the law. However I really doubt if anything will be done for this completely obvious and flagrant mutilation of the presidential seal by the "presumptive democratic presidential nominee". See below ... for the pic
Now the Law is very specific on this issue.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 33 > § 713
§ 713. Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress
Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 2, 2006.
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(c) Whoever, except as directed by the United States Senate, or the Secretary of the Senate on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States Senate, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(d) Whoever, except as directed by the United States House of Representatives, or the Clerk of the House of Representatives on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(e) Whoever, except as directed by the United States Congress, or the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, acting jointly on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States Congress, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(f) A violation of the provisions of this section may be enjoined at the suit of the Attorney General,
(1) in the case of the great seal of the United States and the seals of the President and Vice President, upon complaint by any authorized representative of any department or agency of the United States;
(2) in the case of the seal of the United States Senate, upon complaint by the Secretary of the Senate;
(3) in the case of the seal of the United States House of Representatives, upon complaint by the Clerk of the House of Representatives; and (4) in the case of the seal of the United States Congress, upon complaint by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, acting jointly.
I am going to leave it there. If you can read, you know that Barrack Husein Obama needs to go to jail, for no more than six months, and fined or both.
Now the Law is very specific on this issue.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 33 > § 713
§ 713. Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress
Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 2, 2006.
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(c) Whoever, except as directed by the United States Senate, or the Secretary of the Senate on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States Senate, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(d) Whoever, except as directed by the United States House of Representatives, or the Clerk of the House of Representatives on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(e) Whoever, except as directed by the United States Congress, or the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, acting jointly on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States Congress, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(f) A violation of the provisions of this section may be enjoined at the suit of the Attorney General,
(1) in the case of the great seal of the United States and the seals of the President and Vice President, upon complaint by any authorized representative of any department or agency of the United States;
(2) in the case of the seal of the United States Senate, upon complaint by the Secretary of the Senate;
(3) in the case of the seal of the United States House of Representatives, upon complaint by the Clerk of the House of Representatives; and (4) in the case of the seal of the United States Congress, upon complaint by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, acting jointly.
I am going to leave it there. If you can read, you know that Barrack Husein Obama needs to go to jail, for no more than six months, and fined or both.
Anyone think this will happen?
Friday, June 20, 2008
So Where Is This "Change" We Keep Hearing About?
This is quite AMUSING. Barrack Husein Obama, is the Candidate of CHANGE right?
I mean that is the “mantra” of the campaign. But then he goes and …
Good ol’ Hillary, and Barrack, ain’t they a pair? How cute. And IMAGINE the Obama campaign won’t comment. How convenient.
Now Let’s look at the change we can expect.
1. Earlier this week, Obama included several high profile “Clintonites” in his "meeting" Madeleine Albright and retired Gen. Wesley Clark in meetings to advise him on national security. Ohhhhh yeah this is Change.
2. Backers on wall street that have bought many mortgages (Fanny Mae bought from Countrywide) are huge backers of Obama. Which means they will get bailed out from the government. So they see a good investment in Obama.
3. Barrack also has now opted out from the “public funds” which he swore to abide by, because hey. Money in politics is what brings corruption right? The first one to do this by the way, since the system was put in place.
4. You also have the 527 groups like “Move on.org” or as I like to call them MORON .org, and the Sierra Club. Can take as much money from who ever, without limits, and put on many commercials without any checks as to the credibility of the content. Can anyone say George Soros? (In case you don’t know who that is… He is an uber-wealthy Liberal that hates conservatives, and I would almost bet he is only a capitalist when it is in his best interest. Oh and he took 1 billion GBP in ONE DAY. By playing the futures market. The same reason your oil is insanely high.)
5. You also have the “traditional” Dem. $$ givers like Hollywood, Trial Lawyers, Wall Street, Hedge Fund Exec’s, Business owners, Chicago Land Developers (Tony Rezko sound familiar to anyone?), Black Business Elite (whatever that means), Partners in Law firms, Wall street Execs, and Power Brokers from fortune 500 companies. Oh yeah then there is people like Kenneth Griffin (a late thirties – early forties billionaire) that has hired a bunch of Lobbyists to go to Washington to lobby for the preservation of a “lucrative tax loophole”. Or how about the director of General Dynamics (that is the military subcontractor that has made HUGE PROFITS from the Iraq war) who has made out like a bandit from AT LEAST one Obama earmark. Now with all this being said. WHERE IS THE CHANGE. Sounds like the SAME OL’ POLITICS.
THERE WILL BE MORE ……..
I mean that is the “mantra” of the campaign. But then he goes and …
Good ol’ Hillary, and Barrack, ain’t they a pair? How cute. And IMAGINE the Obama campaign won’t comment. How convenient.
Now Let’s look at the change we can expect.
1. Earlier this week, Obama included several high profile “Clintonites” in his "meeting" Madeleine Albright and retired Gen. Wesley Clark in meetings to advise him on national security. Ohhhhh yeah this is Change.
2. Backers on wall street that have bought many mortgages (Fanny Mae bought from Countrywide) are huge backers of Obama. Which means they will get bailed out from the government. So they see a good investment in Obama.
3. Barrack also has now opted out from the “public funds” which he swore to abide by, because hey. Money in politics is what brings corruption right? The first one to do this by the way, since the system was put in place.
4. You also have the 527 groups like “Move on.org” or as I like to call them MORON .org, and the Sierra Club. Can take as much money from who ever, without limits, and put on many commercials without any checks as to the credibility of the content. Can anyone say George Soros? (In case you don’t know who that is… He is an uber-wealthy Liberal that hates conservatives, and I would almost bet he is only a capitalist when it is in his best interest. Oh and he took 1 billion GBP in ONE DAY. By playing the futures market. The same reason your oil is insanely high.)
5. You also have the “traditional” Dem. $$ givers like Hollywood, Trial Lawyers, Wall Street, Hedge Fund Exec’s, Business owners, Chicago Land Developers (Tony Rezko sound familiar to anyone?), Black Business Elite (whatever that means), Partners in Law firms, Wall street Execs, and Power Brokers from fortune 500 companies. Oh yeah then there is people like Kenneth Griffin (a late thirties – early forties billionaire) that has hired a bunch of Lobbyists to go to Washington to lobby for the preservation of a “lucrative tax loophole”. Or how about the director of General Dynamics (that is the military subcontractor that has made HUGE PROFITS from the Iraq war) who has made out like a bandit from AT LEAST one Obama earmark. Now with all this being said. WHERE IS THE CHANGE. Sounds like the SAME OL’ POLITICS.
THERE WILL BE MORE ……..
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Democrat Solution To Gas Prices...
This is a comment from me about a blog from a Senator that should know better. But of course is just part of the Hate America crowd.
Sen. Robert Menendez
NJ senator - Democrat of course…
I love it when people like this dumb-o-crap senator will lie to your face and pretend that nothing happened. And then complain if anyone complains; and of course blame someone else.
It is funny to me that he would place on his blog lies that I am sure he knows are lies. (No matter how much money he gets from tree hugging hippie burnouts) It is still a lie.
Here is the link that you can go to, if you want to subject yourself to this ignorant drivel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-menendez/bush-and-mccain-drilling_b_107839.html
The sad thing is that you only have to get to sentence 2 to get into the “lie”. He is speaking of McCain and Bush (of course, no Chamberlain dumb-o-crap can pass up a chance to do that)
“He was having a hard enough time trying pass the laugh test when claiming that his plan would have any effect on gas prices anytime soon. Now this over-hyped plan has the stamp of approval from the one person you want to avoid -- a president who is not only an oil man but has also been wrong on just about every issue over the course of eight years.”
Here is where he is wrong or trying to bend the truth a little… or whatever word the Libtards are using for the week.
Technically it is true that it won’t help gas prices in the next 15 minutes. BUT the problem with that argument is that the thing that is driving the price of oil, and in turn driving the price of gas is speculation in the futures market. Yep that’s right folks a bunch of rich white democrats (You can look up how much they have invested – I mean “donated” to the Dem’s versus the GOP) on wall street are the reason you are paying insane prices for gas. What you really think that the Saudi’s could do enough for us to drive them up? Actually our top 2 importers are Canada, and Mexico. But they won’t tell you that. They also won’t tell you that the flood of oil will force the “speculators” to lower prices, because … the supply that overwhelms the demand will drop the price EVERY SINGLE TIME. Which goes to show how much these “educated” people really know about economics. (Now I am no scholar, I didn’t get to go to Harvard or Stanford, I have just made the best out of these neat little things called libraries. Oh and the Internet… thanks Al Gore !…)
On to the next point, and that is the point that the plan is over-hyped… Uh can anyone say “alternative energy”… I mean these will be great and we should be working on them now. But … They also won’t tell you that their “alternative” won’t help prices now either. And their GRAND idea of ethanol has caused a world wide food shortage. Because this is the first time in the history of the WORLD that someone has BURNED THEIR FOOD SOURCE. All in the name of some speckled monkey ant or something like that.
I am not even going to touch the “everyone run from Bush” comment. What does he have leprosy or is his head on fire? Does he sweat acid and blow lightning bolts out his hoo ha? Oh and I just Love the “oil man” thing. He was in the oil business for about 20 minutes. Look him up… the employment records will stand for themselves. Oh yes but he is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Doesn’t matter what he says he is wrong. Come on, seriously… Are we in kindergarten again. It is almost as if he is saying, “I know you are but what am I?”. Good grief, why don’t you just call him a poo poo head and be done with it you childish buffoon. They said the same things about Ronald Reagan too, (RIP) oh and he just came in and cleaned up the Carter mess (fiasco) and scared the ever loving bat crap out of Iran, destroyed the Communist USSR. And many other amazing things. And the Dumb-o-craps are still bitter from that one too.
On to the next ignorant statement in the article.
“But people understand that, in an area devoid of the appropriate infrastructure, it takes a long, long time to build the derricks that would line our shores, along with the pipelines to reach land and the refineries to process the oil. And people also understand that the type of production McCain and Bush are talking about is a drop in the bucket -- or a drop in the barrel -- compared to what this nation consumes.”
A couple of questions for the senator…
1. Who are people?
2. Why don’t we have infrastructure?
3. Why don’t we have refineries?
4. Why does he assume just a “drop in the barrel”?
And now the answers…
1. The people he is referring to is no doubt us idiots that are the “unwashed masses”. Unfortunately for this guy… if you are outside of 20 miles of a “big city” you don’t think the way he does. Even with the constant brain washing of the popular media outlets.
2. The infrastructure is decaying because of the Tax, Levy, and Permits that our “brilliant” officials have put on the “evil” oil companies that makes it almost a foolish investment to keep up, and that is IF they can get the permits.
3. Oh yeah, and the refineries are about the same as #2 except what he doesn’t mention is that this is a BILLION dollar investment with no guarantee you will be able to get your money back. Here is why, we are not talking about the building necessarily, but they have to pay tree huggers to do survey after survey, environmental study after environmental study. Then who wants to have the go ahead on a 2.5 BILLION dollar endeavor, just to have it get the “no pass” once all is complete. All so that some worm won’t be displaced. (And I am not talking about any elected officials on the worm thing)
4. Many conservative (not politically) estimates are that there is enough oil that we could be self sufficient on oil for more than 100 years.
So what do we have…? This guy (maybe not personally, but the party) gets a policy put in place. And in doing so gets the approval and donations from the tree huggers. The result. Every one gets screwed at the gas pump. Solution, complain and blame the GOP. BRILLIANT. And that is not even to mention the GE lobby. They bought HUGE $$ in antiquated electric windmill tech. and the like. They only get a HUGE payback if everyone buys this tech. If they can’t get in with Al Gore, -- and the rest of the run for your life, we are all going to die crowd. -- They are going to loose money. I wonder if the dumb-o-craps will then look at taxing them for their “wind fall” profits?
Now on to another gem of idiocy…
“They may sell it as immediate relief at the pump, but what they're talking about is really a decade or more down the road and would amount to maybe a few pennies in savings, according to the Energy Information Administration. Who would think that's worth the wait? Or the economic risk?”
Wow this guy must have taken “lying 101” with the textbook written by Hitler himself. There will be some but not much immediate relief. NOTHING will give immediate relief. Now another “fail to mention” that he does here is that this isn't the first time this has come around. It was talked about during the Clinton admin. which means… there was no really thinking about it at all. The only thought from him is where to get the next fat intern, and how he could convince them to get under his desk. So 10 years later would be OH YEAH … NOW…
Maybe he went to the same remedial basic math class taught by the same “professor” as his economic professor. There are some good estimates from the heritage foundation I think (I know they are an evil conservative think tank, so everything the think or say is a lie.)(If it isn’t the heritage found. I apologize, but I think it is.) that estimate that if we HAD started doing this 10 years ago; the price for regular unleaded would still be around $1- $1.50 a gallon. That is pennies, but way more pennies than this wind bag would have you believe. The wait, Yes. The “economic” risk, again Yes.
Does he mention what the economic risk that the gas shortage now is to the country and the rest of the world? Does he mention how ethanol is destroying 3rd world countries? Nope, but I am sure it is Bush’s fault either way.
Now to the most pernicious lie yet.
“What John McCain and George Bush are not saying is how their friends at the oil companies are sitting on -- get this -- 68 million acres of unused land leased to them by the American taxpayer. 68 million acres.
As we are moving to develop renewable energy, create alternative fuels and boost energy efficiency, that land represents domestic oil and gas production waiting to be had -- only the oil companies are not doing anything about it.”
Wow I almost hear the harp playing behind this saint. Pure as the wind driven snow. Oh wait… McCain has friends at the oil companies now? I know it is Cheney and Haliburton right?
68 Million acres sounds like a lot doesn’t it. But here is the rub.
Though we have more oil in the shale of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming than combined in the Middle East (800 billion barrels), liberals and environmentalists have made it illegal to touch it.
It's illegal to drill in northern Alaska (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), or off the coasts of Florida or California.
Oil fields in Colorado are being shut down.
We won't develop shale oil fields in the Western states.
It's illegal to explore in the Atlantic.
It's illegal to explore in the Pacific.
It's illegal to explore in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, except a small area off Florida.
We're not receiving any more leases to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, while China, Venezuela and Cuba are.
We haven't built an oil refinery in 25 years and reduced in half those we have.
There's enough natural gas beneath America (406 trillion cube feet at least) to heat every home in America for the next 150 years, but we can't tap it all.
We have the largest supply of coal in the world, but it's Germany who is planning to build 27 coal-fired electrical plants by 2020.
American airlines are in danger of going out of business.
American truckers are being stranded on the sides of the road.
American commuters are going bankrupt trying to travel back and forth to work, and are being forced to work locally for lower wages.
You know reading all this might make you think that someone else instead of the “big bad oil companies” were making it impossible to drill in the 68 million acres that the oil companies have leased. But nope it is the oil companies.
WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE….who makes things legal and illegal? OH YEAH congress … And who controls congress? The Dumb-o-craps… ding ding ding…..You guessed it correct the Dumb-o-craps are the reason you are paying your $4 + a gallon for gas. If they wanted to do something about it they could, but they won’t. But they might have another meeting or hearing to point a finger at some idiot that didn’t graduate high school, but can swing a bat and play baseball, and use steroids. They want you to be mad at the oil companies, and switch to their buddies company and make them money from “contributions” in the process.
And with that being said… let me introduce something that will prove my point.
“I'm an original co-sponsor of Senator Chris Dodd's legislation to penalize the oil companies that leave this type of land unused. Big Oil is looking for yet another government handout by opening up our coastline and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling -- it's time that our government stopped bending over backward for oil companies and instead started pushing them to do what they can with the generous resources they have been given.”
So they make it illegal to drill. Then make it a huge fine to not drill. UH……well I don’t know what to say. "BIG OIL"… What about “BIG GOVERNMENT”. Another gov. handout… Can anyone say welfare, or any other hand-out program in America? We don’t bend over backward for the oil companies. The congress want us to tar and feather the oil companies, then come back to them and bend over forward so Congress can screw us again. Pushing them to do what they can with the generous resources they have been given?
Uhmmmm.. are they MacGyver?
Last time I checked only MacGyver can take a paper clip and a roll of duct tape and make a refinery. Stupid oil companies. Why don’t you go hire MacGyver?
Then idiot of the week goes on and spouts many, many Mantras. From every special interest group that have given him money.
China and others are getting leases for the Gulf of Mexico and are getting HORIZONTAL DRILLING PERMITS. What does this mean? It means once the have begun to drill down in the gulf they will tap into OUR oil sources. Leaving us to flap in the wind. But hey, we won’t harm any worms.
What it boils down to is that everyone is pointing fingers. Everyone is blaming the other guy. And NO ONE is DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
I always love the heart-felt stories of Good ol' Ted Kennedy, and how he is FOR wind mills for wind energy. WELL UNLESS YOU WANT TO PUT THEM WHERE HE CAN SEE THEM FROM HIS ESTATE.
Here is a link to join the call for them to get up off their fat pompous asses and do something about this crisis, and dependence on others for OUR OIL.
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659
Sen. Robert Menendez
NJ senator - Democrat of course…
I love it when people like this dumb-o-crap senator will lie to your face and pretend that nothing happened. And then complain if anyone complains; and of course blame someone else.
It is funny to me that he would place on his blog lies that I am sure he knows are lies. (No matter how much money he gets from tree hugging hippie burnouts) It is still a lie.
Here is the link that you can go to, if you want to subject yourself to this ignorant drivel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-menendez/bush-and-mccain-drilling_b_107839.html
The sad thing is that you only have to get to sentence 2 to get into the “lie”. He is speaking of McCain and Bush (of course, no Chamberlain dumb-o-crap can pass up a chance to do that)
“He was having a hard enough time trying pass the laugh test when claiming that his plan would have any effect on gas prices anytime soon. Now this over-hyped plan has the stamp of approval from the one person you want to avoid -- a president who is not only an oil man but has also been wrong on just about every issue over the course of eight years.”
Here is where he is wrong or trying to bend the truth a little… or whatever word the Libtards are using for the week.
Technically it is true that it won’t help gas prices in the next 15 minutes. BUT the problem with that argument is that the thing that is driving the price of oil, and in turn driving the price of gas is speculation in the futures market. Yep that’s right folks a bunch of rich white democrats (You can look up how much they have invested – I mean “donated” to the Dem’s versus the GOP) on wall street are the reason you are paying insane prices for gas. What you really think that the Saudi’s could do enough for us to drive them up? Actually our top 2 importers are Canada, and Mexico. But they won’t tell you that. They also won’t tell you that the flood of oil will force the “speculators” to lower prices, because … the supply that overwhelms the demand will drop the price EVERY SINGLE TIME. Which goes to show how much these “educated” people really know about economics. (Now I am no scholar, I didn’t get to go to Harvard or Stanford, I have just made the best out of these neat little things called libraries. Oh and the Internet… thanks Al Gore !…)
On to the next point, and that is the point that the plan is over-hyped… Uh can anyone say “alternative energy”… I mean these will be great and we should be working on them now. But … They also won’t tell you that their “alternative” won’t help prices now either. And their GRAND idea of ethanol has caused a world wide food shortage. Because this is the first time in the history of the WORLD that someone has BURNED THEIR FOOD SOURCE. All in the name of some speckled monkey ant or something like that.
I am not even going to touch the “everyone run from Bush” comment. What does he have leprosy or is his head on fire? Does he sweat acid and blow lightning bolts out his hoo ha? Oh and I just Love the “oil man” thing. He was in the oil business for about 20 minutes. Look him up… the employment records will stand for themselves. Oh yes but he is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Doesn’t matter what he says he is wrong. Come on, seriously… Are we in kindergarten again. It is almost as if he is saying, “I know you are but what am I?”. Good grief, why don’t you just call him a poo poo head and be done with it you childish buffoon. They said the same things about Ronald Reagan too, (RIP) oh and he just came in and cleaned up the Carter mess (fiasco) and scared the ever loving bat crap out of Iran, destroyed the Communist USSR. And many other amazing things. And the Dumb-o-craps are still bitter from that one too.
On to the next ignorant statement in the article.
“But people understand that, in an area devoid of the appropriate infrastructure, it takes a long, long time to build the derricks that would line our shores, along with the pipelines to reach land and the refineries to process the oil. And people also understand that the type of production McCain and Bush are talking about is a drop in the bucket -- or a drop in the barrel -- compared to what this nation consumes.”
A couple of questions for the senator…
1. Who are people?
2. Why don’t we have infrastructure?
3. Why don’t we have refineries?
4. Why does he assume just a “drop in the barrel”?
And now the answers…
1. The people he is referring to is no doubt us idiots that are the “unwashed masses”. Unfortunately for this guy… if you are outside of 20 miles of a “big city” you don’t think the way he does. Even with the constant brain washing of the popular media outlets.
2. The infrastructure is decaying because of the Tax, Levy, and Permits that our “brilliant” officials have put on the “evil” oil companies that makes it almost a foolish investment to keep up, and that is IF they can get the permits.
3. Oh yeah, and the refineries are about the same as #2 except what he doesn’t mention is that this is a BILLION dollar investment with no guarantee you will be able to get your money back. Here is why, we are not talking about the building necessarily, but they have to pay tree huggers to do survey after survey, environmental study after environmental study. Then who wants to have the go ahead on a 2.5 BILLION dollar endeavor, just to have it get the “no pass” once all is complete. All so that some worm won’t be displaced. (And I am not talking about any elected officials on the worm thing)
4. Many conservative (not politically) estimates are that there is enough oil that we could be self sufficient on oil for more than 100 years.
So what do we have…? This guy (maybe not personally, but the party) gets a policy put in place. And in doing so gets the approval and donations from the tree huggers. The result. Every one gets screwed at the gas pump. Solution, complain and blame the GOP. BRILLIANT. And that is not even to mention the GE lobby. They bought HUGE $$ in antiquated electric windmill tech. and the like. They only get a HUGE payback if everyone buys this tech. If they can’t get in with Al Gore, -- and the rest of the run for your life, we are all going to die crowd. -- They are going to loose money. I wonder if the dumb-o-craps will then look at taxing them for their “wind fall” profits?
Now on to another gem of idiocy…
“They may sell it as immediate relief at the pump, but what they're talking about is really a decade or more down the road and would amount to maybe a few pennies in savings, according to the Energy Information Administration. Who would think that's worth the wait? Or the economic risk?”
Wow this guy must have taken “lying 101” with the textbook written by Hitler himself. There will be some but not much immediate relief. NOTHING will give immediate relief. Now another “fail to mention” that he does here is that this isn't the first time this has come around. It was talked about during the Clinton admin. which means… there was no really thinking about it at all. The only thought from him is where to get the next fat intern, and how he could convince them to get under his desk. So 10 years later would be OH YEAH … NOW…
Maybe he went to the same remedial basic math class taught by the same “professor” as his economic professor. There are some good estimates from the heritage foundation I think (I know they are an evil conservative think tank, so everything the think or say is a lie.)(If it isn’t the heritage found. I apologize, but I think it is.) that estimate that if we HAD started doing this 10 years ago; the price for regular unleaded would still be around $1- $1.50 a gallon. That is pennies, but way more pennies than this wind bag would have you believe. The wait, Yes. The “economic” risk, again Yes.
Does he mention what the economic risk that the gas shortage now is to the country and the rest of the world? Does he mention how ethanol is destroying 3rd world countries? Nope, but I am sure it is Bush’s fault either way.
Now to the most pernicious lie yet.
“What John McCain and George Bush are not saying is how their friends at the oil companies are sitting on -- get this -- 68 million acres of unused land leased to them by the American taxpayer. 68 million acres.
As we are moving to develop renewable energy, create alternative fuels and boost energy efficiency, that land represents domestic oil and gas production waiting to be had -- only the oil companies are not doing anything about it.”
Wow I almost hear the harp playing behind this saint. Pure as the wind driven snow. Oh wait… McCain has friends at the oil companies now? I know it is Cheney and Haliburton right?
68 Million acres sounds like a lot doesn’t it. But here is the rub.
Though we have more oil in the shale of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming than combined in the Middle East (800 billion barrels), liberals and environmentalists have made it illegal to touch it.
It's illegal to drill in northern Alaska (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), or off the coasts of Florida or California.
Oil fields in Colorado are being shut down.
We won't develop shale oil fields in the Western states.
It's illegal to explore in the Atlantic.
It's illegal to explore in the Pacific.
It's illegal to explore in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, except a small area off Florida.
We're not receiving any more leases to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, while China, Venezuela and Cuba are.
We haven't built an oil refinery in 25 years and reduced in half those we have.
There's enough natural gas beneath America (406 trillion cube feet at least) to heat every home in America for the next 150 years, but we can't tap it all.
We have the largest supply of coal in the world, but it's Germany who is planning to build 27 coal-fired electrical plants by 2020.
American airlines are in danger of going out of business.
American truckers are being stranded on the sides of the road.
American commuters are going bankrupt trying to travel back and forth to work, and are being forced to work locally for lower wages.
You know reading all this might make you think that someone else instead of the “big bad oil companies” were making it impossible to drill in the 68 million acres that the oil companies have leased. But nope it is the oil companies.
WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE….who makes things legal and illegal? OH YEAH congress … And who controls congress? The Dumb-o-craps… ding ding ding…..You guessed it correct the Dumb-o-craps are the reason you are paying your $4 + a gallon for gas. If they wanted to do something about it they could, but they won’t. But they might have another meeting or hearing to point a finger at some idiot that didn’t graduate high school, but can swing a bat and play baseball, and use steroids. They want you to be mad at the oil companies, and switch to their buddies company and make them money from “contributions” in the process.
And with that being said… let me introduce something that will prove my point.
“I'm an original co-sponsor of Senator Chris Dodd's legislation to penalize the oil companies that leave this type of land unused. Big Oil is looking for yet another government handout by opening up our coastline and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling -- it's time that our government stopped bending over backward for oil companies and instead started pushing them to do what they can with the generous resources they have been given.”
So they make it illegal to drill. Then make it a huge fine to not drill. UH……well I don’t know what to say. "BIG OIL"… What about “BIG GOVERNMENT”. Another gov. handout… Can anyone say welfare, or any other hand-out program in America? We don’t bend over backward for the oil companies. The congress want us to tar and feather the oil companies, then come back to them and bend over forward so Congress can screw us again. Pushing them to do what they can with the generous resources they have been given?
Uhmmmm.. are they MacGyver?
Last time I checked only MacGyver can take a paper clip and a roll of duct tape and make a refinery. Stupid oil companies. Why don’t you go hire MacGyver?
Then idiot of the week goes on and spouts many, many Mantras. From every special interest group that have given him money.
China and others are getting leases for the Gulf of Mexico and are getting HORIZONTAL DRILLING PERMITS. What does this mean? It means once the have begun to drill down in the gulf they will tap into OUR oil sources. Leaving us to flap in the wind. But hey, we won’t harm any worms.
What it boils down to is that everyone is pointing fingers. Everyone is blaming the other guy. And NO ONE is DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
I always love the heart-felt stories of Good ol' Ted Kennedy, and how he is FOR wind mills for wind energy. WELL UNLESS YOU WANT TO PUT THEM WHERE HE CAN SEE THEM FROM HIS ESTATE.
Here is a link to join the call for them to get up off their fat pompous asses and do something about this crisis, and dependence on others for OUR OIL.
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659
What our "elect" think about your rights
Here is a side by side comparison of some famous leaders, and some of our leaders today.
They believe that your rights should be restricted, and theirs boundless. It isn't OK for you to carry your firearm, but in many states only "special" permits are allowed. (And by special, this means powerful, or rich. Or elected official.) Those "rich and famous" idiots that want you not to be able to carry your guns to protect yourself ... pay body guards to carry one to protect them.
I know this seems a little hypocritical... but if you were "smart" or knew what they did ... this would all make perfect sense.
1.
Adolf Hitler: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead." (Chancellor's Speech, 1935)
Charles (Chuck) Shumer: (US Congress, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution) "All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars." (Press conference, 1993, exact date being sought)
2.
Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject peoples to possess arms. So let's not have any talk about native militias." (Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-44, Farrar, Strauss and Young, 1953)
Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)
Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all- 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' -I would have!" (Statement on TV program 69 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)
3.
Mahatma Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ("Gandhi, an Autobiography," M.K. Gandhi, 446)
Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)
Bill Clinton: (US President, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution, (not to violate it, criticize it, and belittle it) "When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." (April 19 1994, on MTV)
Now Lets Look At What Our Founding Fathers Thought About The Subject ... These Might Be Names You Know. They Were Brilliant, Unlike Our "Educated" Elect Today.
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)
Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)
James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
Now lets move to a more current & pressing situation.
Since I believe you can't believe anything a politician says during a campaign, you have to look to what they have said in the past to truly get what they believe.
2003 Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization Questionnaire. Barrack Husein Obama answered the following (no wait... my uh.. staffer... yeah my staffer filled that out... yeah that's the ticket)
"35. Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?
While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law.
Boy, it sure is a good thing CRIMINALS don't get their guns from anywhere other than a LEGAL "promoter and seller". And it is a good thing they go in and have a background check ran. And it is a good thing that they only get one a month too. OTHERWISE I would be afraid. I don't know where Barrack Husein Obama went to school but he needs to see if he can get a refund. They didn't learn him too good !! If a midwestern redneck gets it, why can't he?
Then the questionnaire continues on the same question but with a points b, and c...
b. assault weapons?
Yes.
c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons?
I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns.
You know... limiting bullets is a round about way of taking away guns. Well we won't take away your gun ... but you can't have any bullets. So your gun is useless anyway. And in turn it takes away the power that was guaranteed by the constitution... just without "taking" the gun. Because they know they can't. But then again, the fact that they can't take them away is why they are scared of them in the first place.
In his book - The Audacity of Hope, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer's lobby. "
Did he ever stop and think? I doubt it. But what he fails to see is that he wants to put a law into place that would only hurt the people that go by the law. Not the criminal. This is administering a wrong treatment for the wrong disease.
No one goes into the doctor with cancer and the doctor says... here is a bottle of baby aspirin... HOPE it helps... Are you kidding !!
Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999
"Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home. (Define "securely")
He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license. (No way... R RAISE Taxes. Say it ain't so Mr. Obama) ....
He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park. He's also banning the sale of 'junk' handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials." (So I think we established the FACT that Criminals don't get their guns from a dealer, so why mess with the dealers? Why make it difficult to impossible to have a gun store? Simple it is the same reason they want to make it hard to buy bullets. To be able to skirt the 2nd amendment.)
1996 Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization Questionnaire.
Do you support state legislation ???
a. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of handguns?
Yes.
b. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of assault weapons?
Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods with background checks for weapons?
Yes.
Now my apologies about sounding like a parrot... But AGAIN... CRIMINALS DON'T BUY THE GUNS THEY USE, IN A STORE OR FROM A DEALER. THEY STEAL THEM OR BUY THEM FROM SOMEONE THAT DID STEAL THEM, OR SELLS THEM ILLEGALLY. BUT THEY ARE NOT WAITING FOR A BACKGROUND CHECK AND THEY DON'T GET CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS EITHER.
WHEN will the "brilliant" leaders who are "educated" stop doing the same thing over and over and over and over and think that "this time" it will work. Isn't that INSANE? But the reason they do is to blame others for their mistakes in the hopes that people will vote for them.
In the senate... Obama has voted as follows.
Newest first (closest to the "runnin for the president")
2006 SA4615
Prohibition On Confiscation Of Firearms (this keeps Homeland security from using their funds to come and take your guns)
Vote for gun owners.
2005 S.397
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (This stops any current and prevents any future lawsuits against the gun manuf.)
Vote against gun manufacturers twice.
SA1615 Cop Killer Bullet Ban (hi-vel. rounds or "armor piercing" which are both handgun and rifle rounds)
Vote against gun owners.
SA1620 S.397Exemption for Children (which skirts the law that lets the manuf. to be held blameless for the actions of CRIMINALS that use their guns. This is like you choosing to eat a greasy cheeseburger from "cheeseburger world" every meal for 10 years and then blaming them because YOU have hi cholesterol. OR putting a lawsuit against GM because someone you love was killed in a wreck where the other person was driving a Chevy. Doesn't really make sense does it?)
Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1623 Gross Negligence Amendment (This one is a gem. This would gut the one previous. And would leave it open for the COURT to decide "gross neg". And the "court" is doing a bang up job letting people who are not citizens and enemy combatants, legal rights under the US Constitution.)
Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1626 Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 (This makes it a requirement to purchase a gun lock when you buy a gun. If you have the gun for home defense this makes PERFECT sense... I mean who doesn't want to fumble around in the dark to get the lock off your gun when there is someone in your child's room in the middle of the night? That is if you have the key right there, and not on the other side of the house or in the garage.)
Vote against gun owners.
SA1644 Update to SA1620 (This one is really a non issue. And is a perfect example of repeated, repetitive redundancy. And a good use of taxpayer money. But that assumes that they don't have anything better to be doing.)
Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1645 Update to SA1615 (Asinine amendment, just ups spent money that belongs to the taxpayer of course. Also Ol' Kennedy gets to write in it that they should have passed his bill earlier. What a wast of time. And on top of that ... Obama votes "no comment" or present. Why even waste your time voting if you aren't going to ACTUALLY vote?)
Neutral vote.
We can conclude the following from his votes...
Obama says he is for the 2nd amendment ... but doesn't really. He just says so to court the voter that is "clinging to their guns and religion."
Some thing else ... How can you say that you are for CHANGE and then be in alignment with people like Ted Kennedy and other people that are the Antithisis of CHANGE?
They believe that your rights should be restricted, and theirs boundless. It isn't OK for you to carry your firearm, but in many states only "special" permits are allowed. (And by special, this means powerful, or rich. Or elected official.) Those "rich and famous" idiots that want you not to be able to carry your guns to protect yourself ... pay body guards to carry one to protect them.
I know this seems a little hypocritical... but if you were "smart" or knew what they did ... this would all make perfect sense.
1.
Adolf Hitler: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead." (Chancellor's Speech, 1935)
Charles (Chuck) Shumer: (US Congress, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution) "All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars." (Press conference, 1993, exact date being sought)
2.
Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject peoples to possess arms. So let's not have any talk about native militias." (Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-44, Farrar, Strauss and Young, 1953)
Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)
Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all- 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' -I would have!" (Statement on TV program 69 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)
3.
Mahatma Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ("Gandhi, an Autobiography," M.K. Gandhi, 446)
Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)
Bill Clinton: (US President, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution, (not to violate it, criticize it, and belittle it) "When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." (April 19 1994, on MTV)
Now Lets Look At What Our Founding Fathers Thought About The Subject ... These Might Be Names You Know. They Were Brilliant, Unlike Our "Educated" Elect Today.
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)
Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)
James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
Now lets move to a more current & pressing situation.
Since I believe you can't believe anything a politician says during a campaign, you have to look to what they have said in the past to truly get what they believe.
2003 Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization Questionnaire. Barrack Husein Obama answered the following (no wait... my uh.. staffer... yeah my staffer filled that out... yeah that's the ticket)
"35. Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?
While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law.
Boy, it sure is a good thing CRIMINALS don't get their guns from anywhere other than a LEGAL "promoter and seller". And it is a good thing they go in and have a background check ran. And it is a good thing that they only get one a month too. OTHERWISE I would be afraid. I don't know where Barrack Husein Obama went to school but he needs to see if he can get a refund. They didn't learn him too good !! If a midwestern redneck gets it, why can't he?
Then the questionnaire continues on the same question but with a points b, and c...
b. assault weapons?
Yes.
c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons?
I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns.
You know... limiting bullets is a round about way of taking away guns. Well we won't take away your gun ... but you can't have any bullets. So your gun is useless anyway. And in turn it takes away the power that was guaranteed by the constitution... just without "taking" the gun. Because they know they can't. But then again, the fact that they can't take them away is why they are scared of them in the first place.
In his book - The Audacity of Hope, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer's lobby. "
Did he ever stop and think? I doubt it. But what he fails to see is that he wants to put a law into place that would only hurt the people that go by the law. Not the criminal. This is administering a wrong treatment for the wrong disease.
No one goes into the doctor with cancer and the doctor says... here is a bottle of baby aspirin... HOPE it helps... Are you kidding !!
Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999
"Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home. (Define "securely")
He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license. (No way... R RAISE Taxes. Say it ain't so Mr. Obama) ....
He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park. He's also banning the sale of 'junk' handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials." (So I think we established the FACT that Criminals don't get their guns from a dealer, so why mess with the dealers? Why make it difficult to impossible to have a gun store? Simple it is the same reason they want to make it hard to buy bullets. To be able to skirt the 2nd amendment.)
1996 Independent Voters of Illinois – Independent Precinct Organization Questionnaire.
Do you support state legislation ???
a. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of handguns?
Yes.
b. ban the manufacture, sale or possession of assault weapons?
Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods with background checks for weapons?
Yes.
Now my apologies about sounding like a parrot... But AGAIN... CRIMINALS DON'T BUY THE GUNS THEY USE, IN A STORE OR FROM A DEALER. THEY STEAL THEM OR BUY THEM FROM SOMEONE THAT DID STEAL THEM, OR SELLS THEM ILLEGALLY. BUT THEY ARE NOT WAITING FOR A BACKGROUND CHECK AND THEY DON'T GET CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS EITHER.
WHEN will the "brilliant" leaders who are "educated" stop doing the same thing over and over and over and over and think that "this time" it will work. Isn't that INSANE? But the reason they do is to blame others for their mistakes in the hopes that people will vote for them.
In the senate... Obama has voted as follows.
Newest first (closest to the "runnin for the president")
2006 SA4615
Prohibition On Confiscation Of Firearms (this keeps Homeland security from using their funds to come and take your guns)
Vote for gun owners.
2005 S.397
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (This stops any current and prevents any future lawsuits against the gun manuf.)
Vote against gun manufacturers twice.
SA1615 Cop Killer Bullet Ban (hi-vel. rounds or "armor piercing" which are both handgun and rifle rounds)
Vote against gun owners.
SA1620 S.397Exemption for Children (which skirts the law that lets the manuf. to be held blameless for the actions of CRIMINALS that use their guns. This is like you choosing to eat a greasy cheeseburger from "cheeseburger world" every meal for 10 years and then blaming them because YOU have hi cholesterol. OR putting a lawsuit against GM because someone you love was killed in a wreck where the other person was driving a Chevy. Doesn't really make sense does it?)
Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1623 Gross Negligence Amendment (This one is a gem. This would gut the one previous. And would leave it open for the COURT to decide "gross neg". And the "court" is doing a bang up job letting people who are not citizens and enemy combatants, legal rights under the US Constitution.)
Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1626 Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 (This makes it a requirement to purchase a gun lock when you buy a gun. If you have the gun for home defense this makes PERFECT sense... I mean who doesn't want to fumble around in the dark to get the lock off your gun when there is someone in your child's room in the middle of the night? That is if you have the key right there, and not on the other side of the house or in the garage.)
Vote against gun owners.
SA1644 Update to SA1620 (This one is really a non issue. And is a perfect example of repeated, repetitive redundancy. And a good use of taxpayer money. But that assumes that they don't have anything better to be doing.)
Vote against gun manufacturers.
SA1645 Update to SA1615 (Asinine amendment, just ups spent money that belongs to the taxpayer of course. Also Ol' Kennedy gets to write in it that they should have passed his bill earlier. What a wast of time. And on top of that ... Obama votes "no comment" or present. Why even waste your time voting if you aren't going to ACTUALLY vote?)
Neutral vote.
We can conclude the following from his votes...
Obama says he is for the 2nd amendment ... but doesn't really. He just says so to court the voter that is "clinging to their guns and religion."
Some thing else ... How can you say that you are for CHANGE and then be in alignment with people like Ted Kennedy and other people that are the Antithisis of CHANGE?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Guns are people too.......
I have heard the first part of this story about the young girl in NY that was shot with a “stray” bullet. It is a tragic story that deserves to be heard. However, like many people that claim to be journalists, this particular “journalist” puts things in the common and usual “liberal” light.
This is actually quite sad. Because I am sure that he actually paid for the “education” he received. Or maybe not… I don’t really know.
It is funny to me that they are trying to do the same thing now with guns, that they have tried and continue to try with the “evil” SUV.
Here is the whole story and then I will add my comments...
'Neighborhood' Gun Tied to Girl's Death
'Everyone in the Neighborhood Uses That Gun,' Suspect Allegedly Says
By SCOTT MICHELS
June 17, 2008
A teenager is expected to plead not guilty today to charges that he shot and killed a 10-year-old girl with a "community gun" that he allegedly claims was shared by "everyone in the neighborhood."
Kathina Thomas was killed late last month after a stray bullet, allegedly fired by 15-year-old Jermayne Timmons, struck her in the back. The crime has shocked the city of Albany and prompted law enforcement to ramp up a crackdown on so-called community guns — weapons that are shared among alleged gang members.
Law enforcement officials say gangs across the country stash and share weapons, often in abandoned buildings, in an attempt to circumvent gun control laws and avoid being caught with a gun that has been tied to a crime.
"If the area is somewhat controlled by a gang group, they will often have weapons in the area. It's there in close proximity and if trouble does break out someone can get to it," said Andrew Grascia, a longtime gang investigator and president of the New York Gang Investigator's Association.
"It shows how dangerous a single firearm can be. When you have multiple people who have access to it, it broadens its reach on the street," he said.
According to a statement Timmons gave police, he was riding his bike with his friends on May 29 when he fired a shot at a group of teenagers after he thought he saw one of them pull a gun. Police believe the bullet hit and killed Kathina Thomas.
Afterwards, Timmons put the gun in a garbage can outside the Ida Yarborough Houses because "everyone in the neighborhood uses that gun and that's where we keep it," Timmons allegedly told police.
Timmons was charged as an adult with second-degree murder. His attorney said he would plead not guilty at his arraignment today, but declined to comment further.
Timmons' mother did not return a phone message, but in an interview with the Albany Times Union she disputed that her son was a gang member.
"That's all hearsay at this point," Mosetta Timmons told the paper. "He was an average teenager, with good days and bad days."
Kathina's death has galvanized the city. Hundreds, including the mayor and district attorney, mourned at her funeral.
"It's brought us together and everyone in the community, it seems, has come together to say that enough is enough," said the Rev. Edward Smart, pastor of the AME Zion church.
It has also focused attention on so-called community guns. As law enforcement has made obtaining and transporting guns more difficult, gangs have sought new ways to make weapons available to large groups of people, said Det. Bruce Ferrell of the Omaha Police Gang Intelligence Unit.
Community guns also help criminals avoid being caught with a weapon, he said.
"In the 1980s and early 1990s, they were throwing those guns in the river. But they aren't doing that anymore," Ferrell said.
"Before we tended to believe that a lot of guns were being stolen. In our area, we have found that not to be the truth," he said. "A lot of times they pass it around to other gang members or may trade it for drugs. They don't discard them as often as they used to."
The problem of community guns is not limited to Albany. Investigators in Suffolk County, N.Y., recently recovered a gun that has been linked to the execution-style murders of three students in a Newark, N.J., schoolyard and may have been involved in at least two other out-of-state murders. The Suffolk County district attorney's office believes the gun may have moved to New York through a gang network that has a custom of recycling guns used in violent crimes.
Within the last year, police in cities such as Cleveland, Trenton, Philadelphia and Boston have found troves of weapons in abandoned buildings that they believe were shared among criminals.
To combat community weapons, the Albany County district attorney is asking owners of all vacant lots and buildings — attractive locations for shared guns — in the city to give police permission to search their property at any time.
Of the 1,300 requests, so far 320 property owners have agreed and 10 have refused, according to the district attorney's office. John Fenimore, president of the Capital District Association of Rental Property Owners, said the request from the district attorney's office was "too broad" and that he would not sign it.
I don’t seem to even know where to begin….
Let’s start with gun control… Because we all know that makes us safer. Which person in this “community” submitted to the background check? Did they have to wait the time that NY makes their law abiding citizens wait? Or maybe since this is a “community” gun they didn’t have to do the background check. Wait a minute; these guys are trying to go around the gun control laws? But I thought gun control will keep crime down… Oh wait … Never mind … Apparently not.
Now the Libtards just say to “give them stiffer penalties” yeah that will fix it. In fact that is why they have these “community” guns so they don’t get caught with one. Since getting caught with one will get them a stiffer penalty. But wait the Libtards are smart right? (…let me contain my laughter, and then I will continue…) So did they know that they would in fact screw this up too? Just like everything else they “try” to do.
I do have to say these guys (the criminals) are smart; at least tactically. A weapon is a much more advantage than a cell phone to call a cop- who might make it there about 5 min or so after the fact. Then we have the idiot of the minute, Andrew Grascia – in his BRILLIANT assessment of the situation…."It shows how dangerous a single firearm can be. When you have multiple people who have access to it, it broadens its reach on the street.” WELL, there you have it. Guns are not only evil and dangerous; they are also so smart that it can have “reach” by getting unwitting people to share in its evil plan to take over the world.
Oh … then we have a mom that is completely in denial about her son. Saying that the fact that her son is in a gang, “is hearsay” at this point. I wonder who she thinks also “share” this gun that is a “community gun”. I mean… I like my neighbors but they don’t need to be touching any of my firearms.
This young lady's death has given many hoplophobic people, a new avenue to push their fears off onto others. Not to mention the opportunistic political people.
All these people of the gang community are not passing background checks, they are not getting a permit to carry a handgun, they are not being forced to submit to a FBI investigation, and fingerprinting, etc. So why are law abiding citizens required to do so? Simple, the government is afraid of the people. But more specifically the citizenry armed and trained with firearms.
The most disturbing item in the article by far is that these people in the “people friendly” government; and the DA in this area are asking people to give up their constitutional rights. They have sent out 1300 requests, to people to sign over their freedoms to “have a little security”. But I guess they were brain washed (re-educated) in their “college” by their liberal fascist professors; so that they don’t know the thought of Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
But that was the past, and you can hardly find anyone today that has the same or even similar point of view…
And as far as the 10 that refused, they should be proud of themselves. I hope many more will do so.
With all this being said, let us look at what the FBI thinks. They estimate that there are @200,000,000 (That is - two hundred million)guns in the united states in the hands of citizens. Also in the year 2000(I know I need to update my year) they thought that 66% of all murders (15,517 - 100%) were commited by people using guns (or if you are a liberal, 10,241 guns ran out and murdered people). That leaves 199,989,756 (That is - one hundred ninety nine million nine hundred eighty nine thousand seven hundred fifty six) guns that did not kill anyone. And taking the 200mil as a 100% figure, then .0051205% (That is - fifty one thousand two hundred five ten millionths of one percent)of the guns in America killed anyone in the year 2000. This isn't to say that every life lost wasn't precious. This is to keep the "out-of-control crisis" in context.
I don’t see the reason for many things. I don’t know why young children want to be adults; and adults want to be young again, and forever. I do know a few things. And one of these things is that the firearm is an equalizer, that levels the playing field. It will help an elderly woman or man defend themselves against a stronger attacker or force (even more than one). It can make Governments tremble in their shoes, and realize that their power is in the people that they were elected to govern, not in themselves.
Some people learn the hard way. Others can learn from someone else’s mistakes.
This is actually quite sad. Because I am sure that he actually paid for the “education” he received. Or maybe not… I don’t really know.
It is funny to me that they are trying to do the same thing now with guns, that they have tried and continue to try with the “evil” SUV.
Here is the whole story and then I will add my comments...
'Neighborhood' Gun Tied to Girl's Death
'Everyone in the Neighborhood Uses That Gun,' Suspect Allegedly Says
By SCOTT MICHELS
June 17, 2008
A teenager is expected to plead not guilty today to charges that he shot and killed a 10-year-old girl with a "community gun" that he allegedly claims was shared by "everyone in the neighborhood."
Kathina Thomas was killed late last month after a stray bullet, allegedly fired by 15-year-old Jermayne Timmons, struck her in the back. The crime has shocked the city of Albany and prompted law enforcement to ramp up a crackdown on so-called community guns — weapons that are shared among alleged gang members.
Law enforcement officials say gangs across the country stash and share weapons, often in abandoned buildings, in an attempt to circumvent gun control laws and avoid being caught with a gun that has been tied to a crime.
"If the area is somewhat controlled by a gang group, they will often have weapons in the area. It's there in close proximity and if trouble does break out someone can get to it," said Andrew Grascia, a longtime gang investigator and president of the New York Gang Investigator's Association.
"It shows how dangerous a single firearm can be. When you have multiple people who have access to it, it broadens its reach on the street," he said.
According to a statement Timmons gave police, he was riding his bike with his friends on May 29 when he fired a shot at a group of teenagers after he thought he saw one of them pull a gun. Police believe the bullet hit and killed Kathina Thomas.
Afterwards, Timmons put the gun in a garbage can outside the Ida Yarborough Houses because "everyone in the neighborhood uses that gun and that's where we keep it," Timmons allegedly told police.
Timmons was charged as an adult with second-degree murder. His attorney said he would plead not guilty at his arraignment today, but declined to comment further.
Timmons' mother did not return a phone message, but in an interview with the Albany Times Union she disputed that her son was a gang member.
"That's all hearsay at this point," Mosetta Timmons told the paper. "He was an average teenager, with good days and bad days."
Kathina's death has galvanized the city. Hundreds, including the mayor and district attorney, mourned at her funeral.
"It's brought us together and everyone in the community, it seems, has come together to say that enough is enough," said the Rev. Edward Smart, pastor of the AME Zion church.
It has also focused attention on so-called community guns. As law enforcement has made obtaining and transporting guns more difficult, gangs have sought new ways to make weapons available to large groups of people, said Det. Bruce Ferrell of the Omaha Police Gang Intelligence Unit.
Community guns also help criminals avoid being caught with a weapon, he said.
"In the 1980s and early 1990s, they were throwing those guns in the river. But they aren't doing that anymore," Ferrell said.
"Before we tended to believe that a lot of guns were being stolen. In our area, we have found that not to be the truth," he said. "A lot of times they pass it around to other gang members or may trade it for drugs. They don't discard them as often as they used to."
The problem of community guns is not limited to Albany. Investigators in Suffolk County, N.Y., recently recovered a gun that has been linked to the execution-style murders of three students in a Newark, N.J., schoolyard and may have been involved in at least two other out-of-state murders. The Suffolk County district attorney's office believes the gun may have moved to New York through a gang network that has a custom of recycling guns used in violent crimes.
Within the last year, police in cities such as Cleveland, Trenton, Philadelphia and Boston have found troves of weapons in abandoned buildings that they believe were shared among criminals.
To combat community weapons, the Albany County district attorney is asking owners of all vacant lots and buildings — attractive locations for shared guns — in the city to give police permission to search their property at any time.
Of the 1,300 requests, so far 320 property owners have agreed and 10 have refused, according to the district attorney's office. John Fenimore, president of the Capital District Association of Rental Property Owners, said the request from the district attorney's office was "too broad" and that he would not sign it.
I don’t seem to even know where to begin….
Let’s start with gun control… Because we all know that makes us safer. Which person in this “community” submitted to the background check? Did they have to wait the time that NY makes their law abiding citizens wait? Or maybe since this is a “community” gun they didn’t have to do the background check. Wait a minute; these guys are trying to go around the gun control laws? But I thought gun control will keep crime down… Oh wait … Never mind … Apparently not.
Now the Libtards just say to “give them stiffer penalties” yeah that will fix it. In fact that is why they have these “community” guns so they don’t get caught with one. Since getting caught with one will get them a stiffer penalty. But wait the Libtards are smart right? (…let me contain my laughter, and then I will continue…) So did they know that they would in fact screw this up too? Just like everything else they “try” to do.
I do have to say these guys (the criminals) are smart; at least tactically. A weapon is a much more advantage than a cell phone to call a cop- who might make it there about 5 min or so after the fact. Then we have the idiot of the minute, Andrew Grascia – in his BRILLIANT assessment of the situation…."It shows how dangerous a single firearm can be. When you have multiple people who have access to it, it broadens its reach on the street.” WELL, there you have it. Guns are not only evil and dangerous; they are also so smart that it can have “reach” by getting unwitting people to share in its evil plan to take over the world.
Oh … then we have a mom that is completely in denial about her son. Saying that the fact that her son is in a gang, “is hearsay” at this point. I wonder who she thinks also “share” this gun that is a “community gun”. I mean… I like my neighbors but they don’t need to be touching any of my firearms.
This young lady's death has given many hoplophobic people, a new avenue to push their fears off onto others. Not to mention the opportunistic political people.
All these people of the gang community are not passing background checks, they are not getting a permit to carry a handgun, they are not being forced to submit to a FBI investigation, and fingerprinting, etc. So why are law abiding citizens required to do so? Simple, the government is afraid of the people. But more specifically the citizenry armed and trained with firearms.
The most disturbing item in the article by far is that these people in the “people friendly” government; and the DA in this area are asking people to give up their constitutional rights. They have sent out 1300 requests, to people to sign over their freedoms to “have a little security”. But I guess they were brain washed (re-educated) in their “college” by their liberal fascist professors; so that they don’t know the thought of Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
But that was the past, and you can hardly find anyone today that has the same or even similar point of view…
And as far as the 10 that refused, they should be proud of themselves. I hope many more will do so.
With all this being said, let us look at what the FBI thinks. They estimate that there are @200,000,000 (That is - two hundred million)guns in the united states in the hands of citizens. Also in the year 2000(I know I need to update my year) they thought that 66% of all murders (15,517 - 100%) were commited by people using guns (or if you are a liberal, 10,241 guns ran out and murdered people). That leaves 199,989,756 (That is - one hundred ninety nine million nine hundred eighty nine thousand seven hundred fifty six) guns that did not kill anyone. And taking the 200mil as a 100% figure, then .0051205% (That is - fifty one thousand two hundred five ten millionths of one percent)of the guns in America killed anyone in the year 2000. This isn't to say that every life lost wasn't precious. This is to keep the "out-of-control crisis" in context.
I don’t see the reason for many things. I don’t know why young children want to be adults; and adults want to be young again, and forever. I do know a few things. And one of these things is that the firearm is an equalizer, that levels the playing field. It will help an elderly woman or man defend themselves against a stronger attacker or force (even more than one). It can make Governments tremble in their shoes, and realize that their power is in the people that they were elected to govern, not in themselves.
Some people learn the hard way. Others can learn from someone else’s mistakes.
Monday, June 16, 2008
A Hot Circle of Hell Awaits...
This was a hard article for me this morning. Yesterday was my son’s first birthday. I find it hard to imagine anyone wanting to hurt someone who is so innocent. Not to mention has no way of fighting back.
I know this is out of California, and that is another world compared to the rest of the U.S.. However, I know that this is probably less of a crime in California than let’s say, killing some speckled, two-tone, yellow tongued Lizard. Or maybe leaning up against some old tree, picking a sacred flower.
In commenting on this I don’t want to come across as calloused or cold-hearted. In fact, I just want to point out the stupidity of those that hold anything else on this earth on an equal or greater plane than human life.
I will list the article and let you read it for yourself. Of course, with my comments added.
This article comes from Mercury News.com .
Officer kills man who beat toddler to death
WITNESSES COULDN'T STOP ROADSIDE ATTACK
(This is the title. But my thought is ... why not? Did they really try hard?)
As eyewitnesses watched in horror, a 27-year-old Turlock man punched and stomped a toddler to death on a darkened country road Saturday night in Stanislaus County before a police officer shot and killed the attacker.
This is exactly why the people of the USA are SHEEP. They WATCHED. I don't care what I would have had to do to this man (assuming I got there in time, and from the article some of these people did) he would have NOT killed that child. Me going to jail is worth that child's life.
Eyewitnesses tried to stop the man, who swung and slammed the child into the asphalt behind his parked four-door Toyota pickup.
AGAIN let me ask ... how hard? Wasn't it not too long ago when a man was hit by a car and then people just drove by him and did nothing? Again let me ask... did they really TRY ? TRY.... ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We are doomed as a people if we have become so narcissistic that people just TRY to save a 1-2 year old child from an adult. If I had to get out and papercut the man to death from the insurace cards in my glove box (Here I have a gun, but they were in California) I would have done it. There is a quote that they would have done well to listen to..... "Sometimes your best is not good enough. Sometimes you have to do what is required."
Let's move on before my head EXPLODES...
Investigators spent Father's Day trying to understand and cope with the savage attack on Bradbury Road, 10 miles west of Turlock near cow pastures and dairy farms.
The boy's beating left police and rescue workers badly shaken, said Deputy Royjindar Singh. "Why would somebody do this?" Singh said.
"In the shadows and light it looked like he had hit an animal," said Dan Robinson, chief of the Crows Landing Volunteer Fire Department, who came upon the chaos driving home from a late dinner in Turlock, in an interview with the Modesto Bee. "As we backed up again, I could see that he had blood on his arms. I could see that it was a small child."
Robinson jumped from his vehicle and confronted the man, who lunged at him. Robinson said the man wasn't screaming and wasn't loud, but was forceful, saying "demons" were in the boy.
"Give me the knife. Give me the knife," the man said as he grabbed for a pen in the fireman's front pocket.
"There was a total hollowness in his eyes," Robinson said, "like I could see right through to the back of his head."
"confronted"... ? Does this mean the same as TRY?
An elderly couple was first on the scene, calling 911 about 10:15 p.m. to describe the terror unfolding before their eyes.
The man ripped the child out of a car seat in the back of a pickup truck, threw him to the ground and kicked and stomped him against the pavement, witnesses told deputies. At least three people yelled at the man and attempted to pull him off the boy, but were brushed back by the attacker.
This is what is wrong with us, in our society. We call someone else to do something for us instead of doing it for ourselves. Now I understand that they were an elderly couple, and I get that... But my grandfather, until the day he died would have gotten out the tire iron and went after him... there would have not have been any ... TRY.... And the "brushed back"... what the hell does that mean? Does this mean they "gave it the ol' college try" that resulted in nothing. You know but its ok... no one is a looser here.... OH, WAIT... the child, DIED.
Coroner's deputies believe they know the boy's name, but "due to the severity of his injuries making a visual identification is nearly impossible," Singh said.
Now what could this child have done that deserved this? What is going to come of this? Will this action wake anyone up? Nope, no polar bears or baby seals are involved, and so therefore it isn't important.
They were also trying to establish the connection between the attacker and the boy. Authorities were attempting to contact family members on Sunday, but Singh said many live out of the area.
A Stanislaus County sheriff's helicopter flying in the area on another matter arrived about six minutes after the initial 911 call.
You know there is another quote... this time from ... let's see someone people should know.... it was George Washington... You remember Ol' George.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
Wonder what he meant by "every hour"? I don't when I read stories like this.
Officers in the helicopter could see the man beating a child on the road.
So did the people "watching" and "trying" to help.
Because patrol deputies were still several minutes away, they decided to land in a field near the man's vehicle, Singh said.
The helicopter's tactical flight officer, a Modesto police officer, ran toward the suspect with his gun drawn, but he was unable to reach the roadway because of an electric and barbed wire fence, Singh said.
I think I could get through this "obsticle" if it was important to me to do so. Don't you think? But this guy took action that was effective so I can't complain about him. Even though he showed up too late to save the child's life, he did ACT on the situation that confronted him. And he DID what was required.
"When the flight officer first contacted the suspect and tried to get him to stop, the infant was on the ground and the suspect was kicking and stomping the child," Singh said. "The officer demanded that the man stop, but he just continued his assault."
The officer, who has not been identified, then shot the man, who was pronounced dead at the scene. The toddler was taken to Emanuel Medical Center in Turlock, where he was pronounced dead shortly after arrival.
In keeping with the spirit of California, to blame everyone else whose fault it is not. Why don't we round up the people that just stood around and watched... and put them on trial for accessories to murder. Would that be fair? Wait life isn't fair... No...You don't say.
"Some of the key questions we're trying to answer is why this happened?" Singh said. "What was going on before the suspect left? Where was he going? Where had he been? What was going on in his life that day?"
A child was beat beyond recognition and these people are trying to find out the important question of ... "was this guy sad". I seriously think my head will explode. Why... Why...? BECAUSE THIS MAN WAS EVIL, AND HE HAD MURDER IN HIS HEART. P p p p p problem solved. Does it really mattered where he was going, or had been or what was "going on in his life"? He is a MURDERER plain and simple. There is no puzzle to solve here. I am sure we need to find out if he was hugged too much or was teased in school...
Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson sent department employees an e-mail Sunday offering assistance to any staff member affected by the incident, Singh said.
"It does hit home, especially for the deputies with children and those officers in the helicopter that attempted to save the boy's life," he said. "This is one of the more violent scenes they've ever seen. It involves a victim who is defenseless and helpless. And it's Father's Day."
Well... here is the definition of compassion... we send an email to people and give them info on "assistance for the staff people affected by the incident". Now if someone at "one of the more violent scenes" would have done what was "required" instead of just "trying". Maybe no one would need "assistance" except for the MURDERER. And why does it matter that it is father's day? Would this be less horrific if it was just another Tuesday?
Nurse Isabelle Thomas, who lives a few hundred yards from the scene, was working at Emanuel Medical Center when her son called her with word something bad had happened. Soon she heard of the little boy who died 500 yards from her front door.
"I couldn't go to sleep," she said. "I couldn't rest without seeing it and all that blood. I couldn't believe all that blood."
Now in my house there are any number of HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of items that could be used as a weapon. In my car there are much less. BUT... I am sure that this house had at least a Louisville slugger. ... Problem solved. Had no one there watched Wrestling on TV or the UFC... anyone ever hear of a clothesline or a chokehold... those do actually work... problem solved Or maybe a shotgun... again problem solved. Or maybe there was a big stick that was just laying around, or a big rock, or a can of peas would be ok to crack this MURDERER, in the head... problem solved. I have a belt... that can be taken off and you could have hit this guy in the head with a belt buckle... again problem solved.
So am I to belive that these people really TRIED? Now I wasn't there and can't tell EXACTLY what happened. But there are very few things that really light my fuse... and this is one of them.
I can't stand it when I see someone hurting someone that is much weaker than themselves. I would get involved. And by involved I don't mean call someone else and let them take too much time in getting here and doing something.
The liberals love to tell you how to defend yourself, or the people around you. They love to say "call the cops" because it isn't our place to be responsible for our own destiny. We are like sheep to the slaughter.
This guy got what he deserved, and saved the taxpayers alot of money in the process. The cop should be given a medal and a raise. And those that "tried" to help, should be ashamed of themselves. Not to mention they need to be put in jail, or be made to register on the sex offenders list as ... child endangerers.
Would you have done what was necessary, or would you have just tried?
I know this is out of California, and that is another world compared to the rest of the U.S.. However, I know that this is probably less of a crime in California than let’s say, killing some speckled, two-tone, yellow tongued Lizard. Or maybe leaning up against some old tree, picking a sacred flower.
In commenting on this I don’t want to come across as calloused or cold-hearted. In fact, I just want to point out the stupidity of those that hold anything else on this earth on an equal or greater plane than human life.
I will list the article and let you read it for yourself. Of course, with my comments added.
This article comes from Mercury News.com .
Officer kills man who beat toddler to death
WITNESSES COULDN'T STOP ROADSIDE ATTACK
(This is the title. But my thought is ... why not? Did they really try hard?)
As eyewitnesses watched in horror, a 27-year-old Turlock man punched and stomped a toddler to death on a darkened country road Saturday night in Stanislaus County before a police officer shot and killed the attacker.
This is exactly why the people of the USA are SHEEP. They WATCHED. I don't care what I would have had to do to this man (assuming I got there in time, and from the article some of these people did) he would have NOT killed that child. Me going to jail is worth that child's life.
Eyewitnesses tried to stop the man, who swung and slammed the child into the asphalt behind his parked four-door Toyota pickup.
AGAIN let me ask ... how hard? Wasn't it not too long ago when a man was hit by a car and then people just drove by him and did nothing? Again let me ask... did they really TRY ? TRY.... ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We are doomed as a people if we have become so narcissistic that people just TRY to save a 1-2 year old child from an adult. If I had to get out and papercut the man to death from the insurace cards in my glove box (Here I have a gun, but they were in California) I would have done it. There is a quote that they would have done well to listen to..... "Sometimes your best is not good enough. Sometimes you have to do what is required."
Let's move on before my head EXPLODES...
Investigators spent Father's Day trying to understand and cope with the savage attack on Bradbury Road, 10 miles west of Turlock near cow pastures and dairy farms.
The boy's beating left police and rescue workers badly shaken, said Deputy Royjindar Singh. "Why would somebody do this?" Singh said.
"In the shadows and light it looked like he had hit an animal," said Dan Robinson, chief of the Crows Landing Volunteer Fire Department, who came upon the chaos driving home from a late dinner in Turlock, in an interview with the Modesto Bee. "As we backed up again, I could see that he had blood on his arms. I could see that it was a small child."
Robinson jumped from his vehicle and confronted the man, who lunged at him. Robinson said the man wasn't screaming and wasn't loud, but was forceful, saying "demons" were in the boy.
"Give me the knife. Give me the knife," the man said as he grabbed for a pen in the fireman's front pocket.
"There was a total hollowness in his eyes," Robinson said, "like I could see right through to the back of his head."
"confronted"... ? Does this mean the same as TRY?
An elderly couple was first on the scene, calling 911 about 10:15 p.m. to describe the terror unfolding before their eyes.
The man ripped the child out of a car seat in the back of a pickup truck, threw him to the ground and kicked and stomped him against the pavement, witnesses told deputies. At least three people yelled at the man and attempted to pull him off the boy, but were brushed back by the attacker.
This is what is wrong with us, in our society. We call someone else to do something for us instead of doing it for ourselves. Now I understand that they were an elderly couple, and I get that... But my grandfather, until the day he died would have gotten out the tire iron and went after him... there would have not have been any ... TRY.... And the "brushed back"... what the hell does that mean? Does this mean they "gave it the ol' college try" that resulted in nothing. You know but its ok... no one is a looser here.... OH, WAIT... the child, DIED.
Coroner's deputies believe they know the boy's name, but "due to the severity of his injuries making a visual identification is nearly impossible," Singh said.
Now what could this child have done that deserved this? What is going to come of this? Will this action wake anyone up? Nope, no polar bears or baby seals are involved, and so therefore it isn't important.
They were also trying to establish the connection between the attacker and the boy. Authorities were attempting to contact family members on Sunday, but Singh said many live out of the area.
A Stanislaus County sheriff's helicopter flying in the area on another matter arrived about six minutes after the initial 911 call.
You know there is another quote... this time from ... let's see someone people should know.... it was George Washington... You remember Ol' George.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
Wonder what he meant by "every hour"? I don't when I read stories like this.
Officers in the helicopter could see the man beating a child on the road.
So did the people "watching" and "trying" to help.
Because patrol deputies were still several minutes away, they decided to land in a field near the man's vehicle, Singh said.
The helicopter's tactical flight officer, a Modesto police officer, ran toward the suspect with his gun drawn, but he was unable to reach the roadway because of an electric and barbed wire fence, Singh said.
I think I could get through this "obsticle" if it was important to me to do so. Don't you think? But this guy took action that was effective so I can't complain about him. Even though he showed up too late to save the child's life, he did ACT on the situation that confronted him. And he DID what was required.
"When the flight officer first contacted the suspect and tried to get him to stop, the infant was on the ground and the suspect was kicking and stomping the child," Singh said. "The officer demanded that the man stop, but he just continued his assault."
The officer, who has not been identified, then shot the man, who was pronounced dead at the scene. The toddler was taken to Emanuel Medical Center in Turlock, where he was pronounced dead shortly after arrival.
In keeping with the spirit of California, to blame everyone else whose fault it is not. Why don't we round up the people that just stood around and watched... and put them on trial for accessories to murder. Would that be fair? Wait life isn't fair... No...You don't say.
"Some of the key questions we're trying to answer is why this happened?" Singh said. "What was going on before the suspect left? Where was he going? Where had he been? What was going on in his life that day?"
A child was beat beyond recognition and these people are trying to find out the important question of ... "was this guy sad". I seriously think my head will explode. Why... Why...? BECAUSE THIS MAN WAS EVIL, AND HE HAD MURDER IN HIS HEART. P p p p p problem solved. Does it really mattered where he was going, or had been or what was "going on in his life"? He is a MURDERER plain and simple. There is no puzzle to solve here. I am sure we need to find out if he was hugged too much or was teased in school...
Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson sent department employees an e-mail Sunday offering assistance to any staff member affected by the incident, Singh said.
"It does hit home, especially for the deputies with children and those officers in the helicopter that attempted to save the boy's life," he said. "This is one of the more violent scenes they've ever seen. It involves a victim who is defenseless and helpless. And it's Father's Day."
Well... here is the definition of compassion... we send an email to people and give them info on "assistance for the staff people affected by the incident". Now if someone at "one of the more violent scenes" would have done what was "required" instead of just "trying". Maybe no one would need "assistance" except for the MURDERER. And why does it matter that it is father's day? Would this be less horrific if it was just another Tuesday?
Nurse Isabelle Thomas, who lives a few hundred yards from the scene, was working at Emanuel Medical Center when her son called her with word something bad had happened. Soon she heard of the little boy who died 500 yards from her front door.
"I couldn't go to sleep," she said. "I couldn't rest without seeing it and all that blood. I couldn't believe all that blood."
Now in my house there are any number of HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of items that could be used as a weapon. In my car there are much less. BUT... I am sure that this house had at least a Louisville slugger. ... Problem solved. Had no one there watched Wrestling on TV or the UFC... anyone ever hear of a clothesline or a chokehold... those do actually work... problem solved Or maybe a shotgun... again problem solved. Or maybe there was a big stick that was just laying around, or a big rock, or a can of peas would be ok to crack this MURDERER, in the head... problem solved. I have a belt... that can be taken off and you could have hit this guy in the head with a belt buckle... again problem solved.
So am I to belive that these people really TRIED? Now I wasn't there and can't tell EXACTLY what happened. But there are very few things that really light my fuse... and this is one of them.
I can't stand it when I see someone hurting someone that is much weaker than themselves. I would get involved. And by involved I don't mean call someone else and let them take too much time in getting here and doing something.
The liberals love to tell you how to defend yourself, or the people around you. They love to say "call the cops" because it isn't our place to be responsible for our own destiny. We are like sheep to the slaughter.
This guy got what he deserved, and saved the taxpayers alot of money in the process. The cop should be given a medal and a raise. And those that "tried" to help, should be ashamed of themselves. Not to mention they need to be put in jail, or be made to register on the sex offenders list as ... child endangerers.
Would you have done what was necessary, or would you have just tried?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
