Remember

This post is for my friends, relatives, and people that I never met, yet they died to defend my liberty. May we all be worthy of their sacrifice.

Indian men have small penises

That is according to his report I found on the BBC web page:

The money quote is here:

It's not size, it's what you do with it that matters

with an author name of Damian Grammaticus, I thought this was a joke, but it certainly appears to be a real story.

Congratulations! You’ve Only Lost $1 Million Dollars!

The question was: How can broke economies lend money to other broke economies who haven’t got any money because they can’t pay back the money the broke economy lent to the other broke economy and shouldn’t have lent it to them in the first place because the broke economy can’t pay back?

Indeed.

Irony

Bill Clinton was rear ended yesterday. Usually when you see a headline with "Bill Clinton" and "rear end" in it, the story isn't about a car accident.

Illegal Immigrants

In case you haven't gotten this: I think illegal immigration is a REAL problem.Anyone who thinks otherwise is either being deliberately dishonest, or has no idea how bad things are.

Here in Central Florida, hardly a week goes by where I do not respond to a car accident where the at fault driver has no identification beyond a Mexican passport, if they even have that. No insurance, no driver's license, no valid vehicle registration. They are ticketed, and simply are never heard from again. The victim is forced to pay for the damage to his property, the illegal walks away.

Then there is this: One illegal has previously been deported 9 times and is now the man accused of raping a woman in Edmonds, WA. Here is how the witness described the scene:

"I could see the back of his head. I could see his pants were down. I could see her lying on the ground. I could hear her crying, but I couldn't really see her face," said Klein.

I would add that if this had been me as the witness, I would also have seen my sight picture. Rape is a forcible felony in the state of Florida, and deadly force is authorized to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in Florida.

This scumbag had a long record:

Madrigal's arrest and immigration record includes a staggering number of contacts with law enforcement since 1989. That's the year he was convicted of theft using a firearm in California. 

He was deported a couple of times after that. Then in 1999, he was arrested for drug sales in both San Diego and San Francisco. Records show that he was deported three times that year between April and August.

He was arrested for drugs again in Stockton, Calif. in 2000. In 2002, he pleaded to third degree sexual assault in Denver. Later that year, he was deported again. And in 2003, records show he was deported three more times.

Illegal immigrants only get here because they are breaking the law. That makes them criminals by definition. Criminals do not respect the law. Want to know what happens when you stand by and allow illegal immigration? You get to run Casinos and sell Cigarettes. Instead of the Redskins, perhaps they will name a soccer team the "San Antonio Gringos"

A test of sorts

Arizona has come under fire because of the new law that does nothing but give state authorities the same power to enforce Federal law that Federal authorities have. The Second Amendment has come under fire from certain people who claim that it only applies to the militia. I say we perform a test. The Governors of the southern tier of states should activate the National Guard and deploy them along the border with orders to repel the armed invaders from the south. How can people be opposed to repelling an invasion?

The crap that passes for college education

I am taking a class on Critical thinking, as it is a required course for the degree I am seeking. (It seems like I am always in school at least part time.) The class has a web page, and the home page has this on it:

A scholarly study finds it was the 43rd president's personality, not brain capacity, that limited his functional abilities. This is an important distinction. It is not that the former chief executive was incapable of learning (the "Bush is dumb" meme), but that he did not want to learn, and did not believe it was something he needed to do.

That isn't even what the study says. Looking at the study that the Professor claims shows that the former President refused to learn, it actually said this:

[The] best studies, in which raters evaluate statements without being aware of their source, suggest that Bush lacks integrative complexity and thus views issues without nuance. The leading personality theory (the "5-Factor Model"), as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory, suggests that Bush is highly extraverted but not very agreeable or conscientious. He also rates low on "Openness to Experience." Similarly Immelman (2002) had expert raters judge Bush's personality using the Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria. Raters identified Bush as fitting the "Outgoing," "Dominant (Controlling)," and "Dauntless" personality patterns, which together constitute a style given to lack of reflection, superficiality, and impulsivity.

You would expect a leader of a large nation to be Dominant. You don't choose a sniveling Beta male to lead a nation. Also, who are the "raters" that rated him? This is not a study, it is an opinion poll. The very title of the paper shows that the "study" was biased: Bush’s Brain (No, Not Karl Rove): How Bush’s Psyche Shaped His Decision Making.


Why do Liberals insist on continuing to attack George W Bush? Is that all they bring to the table? What does this have to do with a class on critical thinking?


As a side note, the number of Che shirts on campus astounds me. The fact that I saw several shirts with a hammer and sickle printed on them made me realize how Communism has died everywhere in the world, except the College Campuses of the USA.

I didn't know my finger was on the trigger

Another report of a police raid gone wrong. This time, instead of a dog, a child is killed. Without going into the reasons for the raid, and the wrong-headed approach of militarizing our police, I want to talk for a minute about the basic problem here:

Read the comments on the article:

The father said police had the wrong house yet they found the suspect and his moped at that residence. The "woman" and the police officer had a confrontation and the gun accidently went off, striking the child. You dont seriously think the police went into that house and intentionally shot a child do you? Really?

Or this one:

It's heartbreaking what happened, But Police need to arrest suspects promptly, Unfortunately there is a family of a dead 17 year old that need to know who the killer is. You go into a house to arrest a killer, you go in full force, no f ' n around. When the lady physically engaged the officer it became the parents problem. Harboring a murderer in a house with your daughter living there. Who is really to blame?

The police officers that perform these raids are supposed to be the best trained officers on the force. Surely they have been schooled in the four rules? Surely they are aware that when you carry a firearm, you are responsible for EVERY bullet that comes out of that gun.

Police officers are supposed to protect children and innocents, not gun them down. The lady who engaged in a physical confrontation was not deserving of a deadly force response. The cops there cannot deal with a woman without discharging a weapon into the head of a 7 year old girl?

Maybe it is time to take that SWAT option away from the cops. They have proven unworthy of wielding that sort of force, at least in Detroit, MI and Columbia, MO. Maybe other places as well.

It is easy for a SWAT team to intimidate children and women, but as the failed ATF Waco raid, and the  SWAT officers killed in ambushes of SWAT teams show, they come out on the losing end when engaged by any sort of real resistance by people who are unimpressed by fancy uniforms and high tech gadgets.

More Foreclosure problems to come

A report on what happened, and what is likely to happen. Amazingly, it appears like my analysis was spot on. From the report:

What Happened?
For the Second Half of the 20thCentury, Housing Was a Stable Investment…And Then Housing Prices Exploded
Prices Exploded Because the Borrowing Power of a Typical Home Purchaser More Than Tripled from 2000-2006
Americans Have Borrowed Heavily Against Their Homes Such That the Percentage of Equity Has Fallen Below 50% for the First Time
Housing Became Unaffordable in Many Areas Using a Typical 30-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgage, Which Led Many Borrowers to Take Exotic Mortgages
There Was a Dramatic Decline in Mortgage Lending Standards from 2001 through 2006

Why Did It Happen?
Among the Many Causes of The Great Housing Bubble, Two Stand Out:
       1) The lenders making crazy loans didn’t care if the homeowner ended up defaulting
       2) The entire system –real estate agents, appraisers, mortgage lenders, banks, Wall St. firms and rating agencies –became corrupted by the vast amounts of quick money to be made
The Enormous Amounts of Money to Be Made Corrupted Our Financial System
Deregulation of the Financial Sector Led to a Surge of Compensation, Leverage and Profits
Wall Street Firms Were Making a Fortune Securitizing Loans
Mortgages Were Pooled into RMBSs, Tranches of Which Were Pooled into CDOs
The Rating Agencies Were Making a Fortune Rating Structured Finance Products

What is coming?
 The wave of resets of subprime mortgages is mostly behind us, but the mortgage crisis is shifting from defaults driven by resets, to one driven by underwater mortgages and job losses.
Fannie and Freddie prime mortgage defaults are 8 times higher in Q4 2009 than they were in Q3 2008.
Two Waves of Losses Are Behind Us… But Three Are Looming…

Like a drunken sailor?

Debt Recap:

Obama has borrowed more money than:
Carter ($300 billion) in 41 days
Reagan in 8 months
Clinton ($1.539 trillion) in 11 months, 10 days.
GW Bush borrowed $5 trillion in his 8 years in office, and Obama is halfway there in only 16 months.

Obama isn't spending money like a drunken sailor. I spent 6 years in the Navy as a drunken sailor, and when I ran out of money, I quit spending.

National Insolvency

40 million on food stamps!!! In in 8 Americans are on food stamps, one in five accepts some form of assistance. Only half pay income tax. Can any of you see where this is headed?

UCLA professor says overthrow government

He advocates Mexican insurrection to "take back" Aztlan, and that he is engaged in a struggle for communism. He states "La Raza" is at the forefront. Huh, but the TEA party is full of racists, the Minutemen are racists, Arizona is a bunch of racists, but people who advocate invading a foreign country and overthrowing government in the name of your race (Raza) are not racist.He even quotes mass murderer Che Guevara's domino theory.




He says that capitalism is the enemy. Like communism has EVER worked. Using Hugo Chavez and his government is a FAIL. Look at Venezuela and its 30% inflation, and tell me that the system there works.

Well, sport. You and your Raza should remember something when you are plotting your people's struggle against capitalism and imperialism: I have guns (lots of them), and I have ammo (lots of it). Bring it, bitch.

Go ahead, skin it! Skin that smokewagon and see what happens...
M-mister, I'm gettin' tired of your...
[slaps Tyler across the face, unafraid] I'm gettin' tired of all your gas, now jerk that pistol and go to work!
[slaps him harder, now completely steely-eyed] I said throw down, boy! 

Is it wrong for me to express an opinion that someone would do the world a favor by offing this mother fucker? Not because he is Mexican, but because he is an asshole commie that is advocating killing people and overthrowing my country for the benefit of his race.

For comparison- the cost of cheap labor

Lets take a look at two workers- one an illegal immigrant, one a legal one. They both have a wife and two kids, and live in a 2 bedroom apartment in the same neighborhood.

Mr Legal makes $18 an hour in construction as an independent contractor and pays his taxes.
Mr Illegal makes $8 an hour as an "undocumented" worker, working under the table.

Mr Legal makes $37,440 if he works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year.
Mr Illegal makes $16,640 under the same conditions.

Mr Legal then pays $4643 in Social Security and Medicare taxes, leaving him $32,797.
Mr Illegal, working under the table, pays nothing and still has $16,640.

Mr Legal takes the standard deductions, and pays $1,408 in Federal income taxes, leaving him $31,389.
Mr Illegal, working under the table, pays nothing and still has $16,640.

Mr. Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year.  He now has $24,189.
Between using the Emergency Room and EMS ambulances without paying, the county health department, and other state funded clinics at no cost, Mr Illegal pays nothing for health care, and has $16,640.

Mr. Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare, so he pays $500.00 per month for food for his family, or $6,000.00 per year. He now has $18,189 left.
Mr Illegal, having no documented income, and is thus eligible for food stamps, and his children are also eligible for free school lunch and breakfast programs. They are well fed at a cost to themselves of $0, leaving him with $16,640. (under the Federal "indigence" exception, illegal immigrants who would go hungry or homeless without assistance can qualify for food stamps and welfare. Since our illegal in this example has no reported income, his family would qualify for this exemption. it is highly unlikely that this reporting provision will have any immigration consequences for the immigrant)

Mr Legal rents a 3 bedroom apartment for his family at a cost of $13,200 a year. He now has $4,989 left.
Mr Illegal lives in a rent subsidized apartment, and only pays $8,400 a year. He is left with $8,240.

 Mr Legal must have car insurance at $1,600 a year, plus an additional $300 in uninsured motorist coverage, to protect his car and family should he be hit in an accident by Mr Illegal. He is now left with $3,089.
Mr Illegal doesn't have insurance. He still has $8,240. *(as a side note I run on at least 2 car accidents a week where the at fault party is an illegal. They never show up to court, and never have insurance. This leaves Mr Legal to pay the bill, meaning that he better have uninsured motorist coverage, or he is gonna pay.)

They still need to pay utilities, gasoline, clothing, and other expenses.

Mr Legal has $3,089 left, has paid a total of $6,051 in taxes and has gotten $0 in Government subsidies and money, for a net contribution of $6,051.

Mr Illegal has $8,240 left, and has paid $0 in taxes  and has received $18,000 in subsidies and Government assistance, his take home income and benefits are the equivalent of $39,543 in pre-tax income. That's right- to get what Mr Illegal has, Mr Legal would have to get a $1 an hour raise.

Fundamentally, Christianity is the same as Islam

It seems that I touched a nerve yesterday when I compared Christianity and the Muslim faith when it came to application of Sharia law. In the comments, I was accused of being dishonest when I only quoted from the Old Testament to show that religion is a bunch of primitive men practicing according to outdated and cruel practices. In order to believe that the Old Testament, with its commands to kill disrespectful children, and kill those who work on the Sabbath, we must ignore In Isaiah 40:8 God says that the word of the Lord will last forever, and he says the same thing again in 1 Peter 1:24-25.

Even so, to be fair, here are some New Testament quotes:

Jesus was a horse thief. In Mark 11:1-3 we find this transaction:

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.' "

Jesus advocated hate. In support, we find Jesus saying this in Luke 14:26:

Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.

Jesus was a misogynist. Proof is here:

1 Corinthians chapter 14:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Under Christianity, women should be veiled, just as in Sharia:

1 Corinthians 11:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

1 Timothy chapter 2:

Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this:

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Seen enough yet? Again I say:

You must understand that both of these religions were written by primitive men, using primitive standards. Enforcing the Bible in a strict manner will yield similar results as strictly enforcing Sharia. It wasn't all that long ago that Christians were conducting the inquisition, or even the crusades.

The joys of Sharia

A woman is raped by six armed men. The men receive sentences ranging from 2 to 9 years in prison. The woman is sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail. The woman's attorney is now prohibited from practicing law, and is facing further punishment.

Why? Because under Sharia law, women can incite men to commit rape if they commit various acts, including being in the company of a man she is not related to, not covering her body from head to toe, or even driving her own automobile. Of course, it doesn't help that her and her attorney were openly critical of the court and of sharia. A crime which is punishable by death, as a criticism of sharia is a criticism of the Muslim faith, and even of Muhammad himself.

In the comments, one person had this to say:

Doesn’t logic tell you that worshiping a God that is so brutal and unforgiving may be the wrong thing to do?
Long live Jesus Christ - a forgiving God.

Let me point out a few things about Christianity, lest you think that they are any better:

Consider Exodus 35:2

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Then look at Deut 21:18-21. It says:

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.

Then there is Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. All homosexuals need to be killed.

What about this:

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

You must understand that both of these religions were written by primitive men, using primitive standards. Enforcing the Bible in a strict manner will yield similar results as strictly enforcing sharia. It wasn't all that long ago that Christians were conducting the inquisition, or even the crusades. The Catholic church was busy selling indulgences, and the rich were buying tickets to heaven, all sanctioned by his Holiness the Pope.

It is time that we all decide that all humans are born in possession of the same rights and freedoms, and that it is the job of government to protect those rights, ensuring that no person's right overshadows another's.

More thoughts on foreclosure

It was January of 2008 when I posted that both the banks and the borrowers were equally at fault for the mortgage crisis. I will admit that I was wrong. It wasn't until I looked at what was going on that I understood the scope of the problem.

The lenders deliberately manipulated the system, from paying off legislators, to forging paperwork, paying off appraisers, and all sorts of trickery- all the while making bad loans knowing that they would be sold off to investors before the loan went bad.

All your rights are belong to us

Americans affiliated with a foreign terrorist group would be stripped of their U.S. citizenship under bipartisan legislation introduced by Senator Joseph Lieberman.

“Those who join such groups join our enemy and should be deprived of the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship,” Lieberman said at a Washington news conference today.

The proposal would broaden the existing law to include joining or working with extremist groups designated by the State Department as foreign terrorist organizations. Citizens would have the right to appeal.

In the House, Republican Charlie Dent and Democrat Jason Altmire, both of Pennsylvania, are proposing similar legislation.

Notice how he refers to your NATURAL RIGHTS as "privileges of U.S. citizenship?"

From this article:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) thinks he’s found a work-around on the whole Miranda rights debate for U.S. citizens accused of terrorism: Strip their citizenship and ship them to Guantanamo.

“If you have joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you sacrifice your rights of citizenship,” Lieberman said.

What about innocent until proven guilty? Jury trial? Right to confront witnesses?

“My feeling is that if they [HIG] make a judgment that this was a terrorist act, the person should be turned over to the military,” Lieberman said.

That’s not allowed under current law if the suspect is an American citizen, because U.S. citizens cannot be tried in military commissions. The 2006 law that outlines guidelines for the commissions authorizes them only for “alien unprivileged enemy belligerent[s].”

Isn't this the same crowd that wanted Bush tried for war crimes for doing the same to enemy combatants? Now that the Democrats are in charge, all of that is hunkey dorey? I warned all of you Republicans that the tools you gave Bush would be used by his successor.

and before you Republicans get all smug about it- your candidate for President supports this:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said reading Shahzad his rights was a “serious mistake.”

“I certainly would not read this individual his Miranda rights. I would not do that,” he said.

“What I was talking about was that we don’t have to Mirandize someone immediately. You don’t — before you charge them, there’s time that elapses,” McCain later clarified to POLITICO.

How much longer will it be before we are a dictatorship? Or are we already?

Militarization of the police

SWAT team breaks into home, fires seven rounds at family’s pit bull and corgi (?!) as a seven-year-old looks on.

They found a “small amount” of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.

So smoking pot = “child endangerment.” Storming a home with guns, then firing bullets into the family pets as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone’s safety.

Just so we’re clear.

Here is the video of the brave "heroes" taking down a suburban family and their pet:



With these rights in mind, would you like to answer questions?

No, you fucking douchebag, I want my fucking lawyer.

These military style raids are good at killing animals and roughing up suburban families, but get their asses handed to them when met by real resistance. Pussies. I mean, shooting a corgi? How can a corgi possibly be a threat to an armored SWAT team?

In his statement, the Police Chief states that the initial shot missed the pit bull and the dog then attacked officers. Funny, on the tape I can hear the first shot, and the pit bull yelps until it is shot again. The Chief gets one thing right: The dog wasn't shot by mistake.

In the end, all the cops got was a plea deal for misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Why don't I feel safer knowing these cops are looking out for us?

Any time a vote comes up for cutting police funding, pay, or benefits, I will do so.

Tip from The Agitator

Carry pistols

I just wanted to say  that I do not claim to be an expert on 1911s. I didn't even own one until about 2 years ago. I always thought that it didn't make sense to buy a pistol that requires hundreds or thousands of dollars in gunsmithing to work properly. I want a weapon that is reasonably accurate and reliable without a lot of work. Hearing how fickle 1911s were with ammo and reliability, I put off buying one for quite a long time.

I  am not nearly the pistol expert that Tam (who knows more about guns and is a better shooter than I will ever be) is, but I have my own opinions on what works for me, and that is what I base my opinions on. Having only started buying 1911s less than 3 years ago, my opinion stands: you don't and shouldn't need to spend gobs of money for a reliable, reasonably accurate pistol.

Pistols, at least the ones you carry, need only be accurate to a point. I do not see myself needing to take 50 yard headshots with a handgun. To me, the requirements for a carry handgun are simple:

1 It must be reliable above all else. A gun that jams every 50 rounds, or even every 500 rounds is just not going to cut it when my life depends on that weapon's proper function.

2 I must be comfortable shooting it AND carrying it.  A gun that is uncomfortable to shoot or carry will likely be left at home, and a gun at home does not help you much when you need it away from home. This is a good reason for NOT carrying a Desert Eagle.

3 I must be able to rapidly score multiple hits in a short amount of time, using that particular handgun. Not every gun is best for every shooter. For example, my wife HATES everything but Glock. As far as I am concerned, I think Glock makes a fine handgun, but I just don't shoot as well with them as I do others. The wife and I both despise the Taurus Millennium, with the trigger that feels like you are dragging an iron plate across a gravel parking lot. Others like that handgun. To each his own.

4 It must be in a caliber that will be an effective defense round. I have decided that a primary defense gun should be 9mm or larger for autos, and .38 Spl or larger for revolvers.

5 With that being said, I have tried out a lot of pistols. I have owned, or do own the following: Glock 26, 27, 19, 17; S&W 59, 5906, 4506, 4566, 637; Beretta 3032, 92; Ruger P85; Taurus PT92, PT945, PT-111, Sig 220, 226, 229 (in 9mm and .357 Sig). Colt 70 Combat Commander, Kimber Pro Carry, Eclipse Custom, Pro Carry, Ultra Carry. ( I am not including non-defense pistols in this list, such as .22's or even backup guns)

6 I carry each gun as situations dictate. There are times when I can carry a full sized gun, and times when I will not. I do not trust the Colt, it is a jam-o-matic. I don't carry a revolver much, but that is my personal preference. My mom carries a .38 revolver. I don't prefer the Glocks, but my wife does.

My preferences are:

For a compact SA pistol, my favorite is the Kimber Ultra carry. It is small, powerful, and reliable. Mine is fitted with Crimson Trace laser grips.  

For a full sized SA, my preference goes to the Kimber Eclipse Custom. Due to its size, I rarely carry a full sized pistol. This one has TruGlo tritium fiber optic sights. I may put a set of them on the Pro carry, and carry that one as a mid sized SA. I don't know- maybe some XS Ashley sights. I haven't decided.

For DA pistols, I prefer the Sig 229 in .357 Sig. That pistol just seems to seek out the target every time. I have even shot a few IDPA matches with it, and it has won me a few trophies.

I like guns that shoot, and shoot well. I don't need to tinker with them, I don't need to spend gobs of money fixing them up. What I need os for them to go 'bang' every time I pull the trigger, and I need them to make the bullet go where I was pointing the gun. That's it.

The Onion wins the internets (again)

via Marko,we get this winner from the Onion:
Supreme Court Upholds Freedom Of Speech In Obscenity-Filled Ruling

The winning quotes include:

the freedom of expression among the most "inalienable and important rights that a motherfucker can have."

Added Ginsburg, "In short, freedom of speech means the freedom of fucking speech, you ignorant cocksuckers."

John Paul Stevens, 90, who turned to his colleagues and made a repeated up-and-down hand motion intended to simulate masturbation.

Thomas wrote. "But those pricks can take their arguments about speech that 'appeals only to prurient interests' and go suck a dog's asshole."

Too bad this ruling wasn't for real, or this woman would not have been thrown in jail for having a shirt that a judge found objectionable. I guess only the proles have to worry about the First Amendment. Judges are free to violate the First Amendment rights of anyone they choose. I really do not think the Founding Fathers of this Nation had this sort of judicial power in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

More race bating

The Phoenix Suns announced that they will honor hispanics by wearing jerseys that say "Los Suns."

The Phoenix Suns will wear "Los Suns" on their jerseys Wednesday for Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals, owner Robert Sarver said, "to honor our Latino community and the diversity of our league, the state of Arizona, and our nation."
The decision to wear the jerseys on the Cinco de Mayo holiday stems from a law passed by the Arizona Legislature and signed by Gov. Jan Brewer that has drawn widespread criticism from Latino organizations and civil rights groups that say it could lead to racial profiling of Hispanics. President Barack Obama has called the law "misguided."

Lets call this what it is: This is a step to honor MEXICANS. Cinco de Mayo is a MEXICAN holiday, not a hispanic holiday, unless you want to claim that all hispanics are Mexican. Heck, you can't even make the claim that all Mexicans are hispanic. Mexican is not a race. Mexican is a nationality.

The secret here is that the law in Arizona has nothing to do with race, and everyone knows it. This is just another example of race-baiters opposing something they don't like by using the "racism" boogieman.

How exactly can the Suns honor the diversity of their league? Can anyone name a single hispanic player in the NBA?

How does the NBA honor white people? That one is easy. A team wishing to honor whites simply loses to the Celtics.

Missing the 80's

I am sitting here listening to my collection of MP3s from the 80's. Right now, The Outfield is performing Say it Isn't So. Am I missing the 80's, or am I becoming an old man who is missing his youth?

Looking more and more like they didn't do anything

I mean the Hutaree. Like I said before, maybe they didn't do anything. The judge thinks the Government has a weak case. Of course, that doesn't stop the FedGov from using their unlimited resources to side step the issue.

The Lies about Arizona's New Immigration Law

There are so many lies out there about the new law in Arizona, I figured I could set a little of the record straight:

The pertinent part:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Here is the actual text of the law, if you are interested.

I have responded to at least 3 car accidents in the past 2 weeks where an illegal immigrant was the driver. One of them was drunk and got arrested for his third DUI. The way it stands now is that local and state police cannot enforce immigration law, that is left to the Feds, who are not doing the job.

Arizona's new law simply allows the local and state cops to do the job that the Feds are not. The law says that the cops must have a reasonable suspicion to ask for identification, which by the way is the same level of suspicion that allows them to ask for your identification already.