Oh, This is GOOD

Oh, This is GOOD

It’s been making the rounds of the Intarwebz. I’ve seen it twice now, once on AR15.com and once on a pro-Hillary site. How’s that for “broad appeal” (no pun intended):

Palin is completely inexperienced and utterly incapable.

You heard me. The initial euphoria over the idea of a naughty librarian on the TV news each night for the next 4 to 8 years has worn off. Now, it back to hard, pragmatic reality and the reality is that she has no place in Washington, DC.

Want proof? Consider the following:

Only an amateur would speak off the cuff, as she usually does. Experienced politicians avoid speaking extemporaneously whenever possible. Otherwise, the electorate might find out what they really think.

If Palin had meaningful experience, she would have known that the job of Ethics Commissioner is SUPPOSED to be corrupt, thus saving her the trouble of resigning in protest and then running for the highest office in the state.

Only an amateur would attain political office by actually defeating opposing candidates at the ballot box. An experienced politician would have eliminated opposition candidates by protesting technical glitches in their nominating petitions or petitioning to change the party rules on how votes are counted in primary elections or hiring groups like ACORN to register 14 people who all, coincidentally, have the same names and reside at the same abandoned and boarded-up restaurant. Did she not once consider taking lessons from the Chicago political machine that got Obama elected? Sheesh.

Any experienced politician knows that upon assuming high office, you are supposed to demand a larger plane; not sell the useless behemoth that was recently purchased by your predecessor.

Only an amateur would implement a comprehensive energy and conservation policy shortly after taking office. A more experienced politician would have avoided the issue outright for at least 30 years while demonizing oil companies, then banning any voting on the topic followed by a recess vacation through the next election

Any experienced politician knows that once elected, you are not supposed to spend your first 20 months in office actually doing the job you were elected to do. You should be campaigning for another office – as Obama could have told her.

Sarah Palin was only supposed to TALK about government reform and utter platitudes about exiling corrupt, entrenched politicians – not actually do anything about it. She demonstrated her naivete by creating a smooth running government that included representatives of other political parties, thereby making it impossible for her to find a scapegoat if anything goes wrong.

Only a political greenhorn would thumb their nose at the environmental lobby by hunting and actually shooting moose and caribou. Worse yet, she foolishly told the truth: the proposed oil drilling site in ANWR is NOT the secret location of Eden but is, in fact, a barren wasteland.

What Sarah Palin does not seem to understand is that here in the 21st century, chief executives do not negotiate beneficial business deals for their states with foreign nations or take time to actually hang out with soldiers in Iraq. That time is better spent preening for the cameras in Berlin – something else a more seasoned and experienced politician such as Obama could have told her.

Holding oil companies accountable and successfully negotiating mutually productive agreements with them proves she does not understand their true purpose: if you work with them to the benefit of your state, you will no longer have a faceless villain to scare people into voting for you.

By creating new jobs instead of demonizing capitalism, Sarah foolishly enabled people to become more reliant on themselves and less reliant on government, hereby diminishing the dependant voter base – a classic newbie mistake. After all, if people have jobs, they will not have much need for the government and will be too busy enjoying their lives to protest the U.S., its corporations and, of course, opposing candidates.

Worse yet, Palin created a budget surplus and mailed it back to the taxpayers. Doesn’t she know that if the government generates a surplus, it’s doing something wrong? An experienced leader like Obama or Biden knows that taxpayer money belongs to the government – not to the people.

In another rankly amateurish move, she cooperated completely with government officials investigating accusations made against her. Experienced politicians know that you are supposed to stonewall, obfuscate, pressure libraries to expunge any record of unsavory political associations and ship potential witnesses off to Caribbean islands – another good reason not to sell the executive jet.

Yup, she is hopelessly inexperienced.

That is why I ♥ SARAH’CUDA and why I am voting McCain/Palin ‘08

I can’t find it in the original, so I don’t know who to credit it to.

Bumpersticker of the Day

Bumpersticker of the Day

Via SayUncle from an email from Tam:


As Uncle put it,

Ya know the really cool thing about not being a liberal nor a Democrat? It’s the fact that joke is funny and we’re not offended.

It’s also Uncle’s sixth blogoversary. Drop by and commiserate congratulate him!

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

The more I think about it . . . which seriously causes the acid stomach, let me tell you . . . the more I believe the reason we haven’t lined you all up against the nearest wall is the price is just too high, and we’re too comfortable.

It won’t be that way forever, boys. – Hazel Stone at The Line is Here

Via Curtis Lowe

Talk About an Internet WayBack Machine

Talk About an Internet WayBack Machine!

The Technorati Monster appears to have escaped again, but no one there has noticed. I checked my links page just a few minutes ago and saw this (click for full size):


Note the link ages – 14121 days? That’s . . . (carry the one . . .) thirty-eight years and eight months! I’m pretty sure Al Gore hadn’t invented the internet that long back!

Couldn’t Say it Better Myself

Couldn’t Say it Better Myself

And when I can’t, I let the other guy/gal say it. Curtis Lowe fisks a bit of Obama’s acceptance speech, and does it WELL in All This and a Toaster Too. A taste:

OK: This one paragraph I will fisk:

For over two decades, (McCain’s) subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy, give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. (No, it isn’t given to them and they aren’t “lucky.” The vast majority of “the ones with the most” earned it through ingenuity, risk-taking, hard work and sacrifice – and they are the business owners, large and small, that employ the bulk of Americans – asshole).

In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society (Exactly! As in private property ownership – the cornerstone of all rights-based and law-based societies and the antithesis of what you believe in and propose)

RTWT.

Especially the last line. Yeah, I’m glad McCain chose Palin, too, but Curtis is pretty much right.

Let Me Show You Why I Love Bloggers

Let Me Show You Why I Love Bloggers

And the people who read them.

If you don’t already read Boobs, Injuries and Dr. Pepper, WTF is wrong with you? (I just realized that I didn’t have it listed in my ridiculously long blogroll. That’s now fixed.) But if you don’t, I’d like you to go to this page, scroll down to Tuesday, August 12 to the post entitled No, Not Upset. LIVID and begin reading. I’d like you to proceed upward through the current post. It’ll take you a while.

It’s worth it, I promise.

A New Trial for Olofson?

A New Trial for Olofson?

Via The War on Guns comes the news that an appeal has been filed in David Olofson’s case. For those of you with short memories, David Olofson is the Wisconsin man who was sent to prison for “transferring a machine gun” when the BATFE – after initially testing his malfunctioning AR-15 and declaring it not a machine gun, retested it with soft-primered ammo and then declared it was a machine gun – suppressed the evidence of the initial testing.

The appeal brief is here. (PDF) The body of the brief itself runs from page 6 to page 56. It’s not a difficult read, but it ought to piss you off. Here’s a key portion:

Four months after the search and ATF interrogation, on November 17, 2006, ATF agent Keeku filed a Criminal Complaint alleging that, on or about July 13, 2006, Olofson “knowingly transferred a machine gun … in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o).” As part of the factual support for the complaint Agent Keeku’s Affidavit stated:

On November 6, 2006, a Firearms Enforcement Officer with ATF test fired the Olympic Arms, serial number F7079 … us[ing] 60 rounds of commercially available, .223 caliber ammunition. Three tests were performed, each with twenty rounds of ammunition. When the selector switch was placed in the unmarked third position, the firearm fired all twenty rounds automatically in each of the three tests. [Keeku Affidavit, p. 3, R. 1 (App. B-17).]

Omitted from the Keeku Affidavit was mention of an earlier test, conducted “in October of 2006” (Tr. 101, ll. 6-13), by the same ATF officer, utilizing “commercially available ammunition” (see Tr. 107, l. 17), in which Olofson’s AR-15 did not fire automatically,” as the testing officer had expected it to do (Tr. 107, ll. 4-10), but instead had malfunctioned by “hammer follow.” Tr. 122, l. 23 – 123, l. 2. See also Tr. 106, ll. 1-21. Based on this initial test, the testing officer determined that “this gun was not a machine gun.” Tr. 124, l. 21 – 125, l. 1. Thereafter, agent Keeku requested a retest.

Why? Because he didn’t get the result he wanted. The initial test indicated that the rifle malfunctioned with the safety in the third position. A “hammer follow” is a malfunction. With the retest, this time videotaped, they managed to get the rifle to fire multiple shots.

That part I was aware of. This part I was not:

At trial, the prosecution and defense counsel originally agreed “that we would allow our witnesses in throughout the entire trial.” Tr. 91, ll. 4-6. Immediately prior to the testimony of its expert firearms testing agent, however, the prosecutor informed the court that the prosecution would like to sequester defense expert during the government expert’s testimony. Tr. 90, ll. 10-13. In response, defense counsel argued not only that the prosecution should be held to his previous word, but also that “under Rule 703 it’s clear that an expert can testify to factual data … that are just made known to the expert [the] day [of] the hearing.” Tr. 91, ll. 10-13. Without explanation, the court ruled in the prosecution’s favor, “exclud[ing] [defense expert] from the trial during … that portion of the trial where the government is offering what it believes to be expert testimony.” Tr. 95, ll. 6-11, App. B-35. Thus, defendant’s expert was limited in his testimony to a brief “function check” of the firearm (Tr. 166, ll. 8-18), a review of the prosecution two expert reports (Tr. 171, ll. 14-15; Tr. 179, ll. 5-8), and viewing a portion of the video at trial.

WTF? Seriously – WTF?!?!

Read the whole thing, but take your blood pressure medication first.

Then read Appendix B (PDF).

We do not have a “Justice” system, we have a LEGAL system. If someone in that system wants to convict you of something, then they’ll find a way.

David complains in his post:

I posted the appeals brief yesterday that details all the dirty tricks the government and the prosecution employed–from mischaracterizing technical points on the witness stand, to ignoring precedent established in the Staples case in re definitions, to failure to produce documents requested by the defense (the excuse was correspondence with the original manufacturer contained privileged tax information), to preventing the defense expert witness from inspecting the firearm and excluding him from the courtroom during when the “expert witness” for the prosecution testified–actually reneging on their agreement and legal requirements, and much, much more…all with the tacit consent of a complicit judge.

So far, there has been zero interest shown from the “gun blogosphere.”

A commenter complains:

Sadly, many of the most vocal, and vicious, voices in the gun blogging community, including the gun forums, tend to be pragmatists. Neither Olofson nor Fincher are ‘pure’ enough for them. Anytime Olofson, or Fincher are brought up, outside of a few select blogs, there is an automatic flame war drowning out any opinions other than the party line that they got what they had coming to him.

Personally, I hope that both Olofson and Fincher manage to regain their freedom.

I left this reply:

Personally, I hope that both Olofson and Fincher manage to regain their freedom.

So do I. Olofson was railroaded, of that I have absolutely no doubt. Fincher, on the other hand, challenged already established precedent in the circuit in which he was tried. I don’t like that he was convicted, but I understand why he was, and I was completely unsurprised that SCOTUS denied cert. This was, after all, about machine guns, and those scare the white people. Same for the 9th Circuit’s Stewart decision.

As far back as Sun Tzu, the advice is to “know yourself, know the enemy, and choose your battles carefully.” Mr. Fincher didn’t do at least two of the three.

I don’t read your blog daily, David, nor check JPFO daily either. Thanks for putting up the link. I’ll write a post this evening when I get home. I hope Olofson gets another trial and an acquittal, and I hope he can successfully Nifong the prosecutor.

On second thought, it isn’t the prosecutor I’m really interesting in seeing Nifonged, it’s ATF Agent Keeku.