Category: Uncategorized

KevinLeave a comment

The American Dream is What, Again?.

In the previous piece I quoted someone on the topic of people “voting against their self-interest” in which that person said,

As it turns out, the American Dream is just that…

Kim du Toit has complained that Hollyweird doesn’t put out any movies he wants to see, but thanks to Carnaby from Carnaby Fudge I see there’s one coming out in December that addresses both topics, The Pursuit of Happyness. Watch the trailer (it’s Apple Quicktime, but worth it.)

I’ll be waiting for it to open. Like Carnaby said, now I like Will Smith even more.

“Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You…”

KevinLeave a comment

It’s Primary Day in a lot of places, Arizona being one of them. For most people, this cartoon describes accurately what they’re voting for:

I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard someone on the Democrat side of the aisle complain that the poor and middle class votes Republican “against their own self-interest,”* insisting by inference that not voting to “take his money and give it to you” is, well, undemocratic. Read the money quote from that link:

Why do so many poor and middle class people vote for Republicans against their own self-interest? Because if they aren’t rich now, 40% of them believe they will be soon. As it turns out, the American Dream is just that…

Yes, friends, the idea that you can earn your way to wealth is just a pipe-dream. Better that you vote someone into office so that they can steal appropriate just enough money for you from the already-wealthy to make you even more dependent on government. That’s how they define “self-interest.”

The concepts of sacrifice, delayed gratification, fairness, and just plain right have been inverted, twisted, and damned-near obliterated by the Left.

So, go to the polls today and vote, not for yourself, but for the future. Vote, if it’s available, for what’s right rather than what’s immediately gratifying. If thats not available, vote against those who would take from A and give to B, just to get B’s vote. But vote. You may not be able to stop the toboggan ride to hell, but you can at least try to throw out an anchor to slow it down.

*Here’s some more wonderful “self-interest” quotes:

“Whenever a group of people will vote for a President, put a man in power and do that against their own self-interest, their economic self-interest…” begins Richard “Skip” Daly, business manager of the Laborers, Hod Carriers, Cement Workers and Miners Local Union 169 (Nevada), before stopping and rewording his thought. He tries again: “They voted for a Republican who’s got the biggest deficit spending ever; they voted against all of their self-interest. And the issue that came out in exit polling was ‘we voted on the moral values.’ What that says to me is, these people believe it’s more important than their family’s well-being that we don’t have abortion. And, to me, that is an intolerance that we have not experienced in this country since we put into insignificance the Ku Klux Klan.” – The Nation, 11/18/04

Yes, actually believing in something like morals is “undemocratic.”

Poor Republicans are working against their own self-interests. People in the military who vote Republican are working against their own self-interests. Gay people who vote Republican (apologies to Andrew Sullivan) are working against their own self-interest. Hell, unless you’re, say, the CEO of a large multinational corporation, voting Republican is against your self-interest.

That’s why I called it “ignorance.” 🙂 – “Deanocrat” in this comment thread.

Perhaps they’re voting for some value you just don’t have the capacity to grasp? And here’s another:

I am surprised at how ignorant and uniformed the public is regarding the estate tax. When my father passed away, there was about 200K left to be divided between my brother and me. My brother (who votes Republican, I think because of guns and because he’s now a father and thinks that is what fathers do….not that I understand that) was self-congratulatory about this, saying that because of Bush we wouldn’t have to pay the estate tax, etc. He had absolutely no concept of the difference in what the estate tax was versus the inheritance tax. When I explained the difference between the two and pointed out the estate tax limits, etc. he still seemed to think that Bush’s plan was a good one even though he will never benefit from it. Just another example of the middle class voting against their own self-interest. I guess my brother hasn’t figured out that lower taxes for the wealthy will eventually mean higher taxes (or reduced services, such as homeland security) for him and a huge burden of national debt for his children to pay off. – Posted by “ann” in this comment thread.

The concept of “it’s their money” just doesn’t reach the Left. Nope, it’s the GOVERNMENT’S money, to them. And they just don’t grasp how anyone could see it differently.

9/11

KevinLeave a comment




And then there was Spain:


Then London:

But in between those came Beslan:


Does anyone doubt that the enemy wants to do that here? I recommend that you read Steven Den Beste’s latest peice, The Disunited States of America, but remember this: Disagree all you want, but when you start working for their side, don’t be surprised when the rest of us roll right over the top of you, leaving nothing but a smear.

HELL HATH FROZEN OVER!!

KevinLeave a comment

Via Instapundit:

Woman in a Wheelchair Shoots an Attacker

By ANAHAD O’CONNOR and SARAH GARLAND
Published: September 9, 2006

As muggings go, it began like many others. A 56-year-old woman was leaving her building in her wheelchair, her only company the small dog perched on her lap.

Her attacker came from behind, the police said, and there was no one else around. But this attempted robbery had an ending unlike many others. As it turns out, the would-be victim, Margaret Johnson, has a permit to carry a .357 handgun – and she carries it often.

No, she does not have a “permit to carry a .357 handgun” – read on.

The mugging ended seconds after it began, the police said, when Ms. Johnson pulled out her gun and shot her attacker in his arm. Last night, the man accused of the attempted mugging, Deron Johnson, 45, was in stable condition at Harlem Hospital Center with a gunshot wound to his elbow, the police said. He was under protective custody and is facing a robbery charge, the police said.

Ms. Johnson, who was treated at a local hospital and later released, said she suffered bruises to her neck and arm. “I’m tired, I’m really tired,” she said as she sat in her apartment last night, wearing a tan baseball cap and appearing rattled. “He tried to mug me, so I shot him.”

Friends and neighbors said they were not shocked to learn that the woman known to scoot around her building with her small dog had held her ground. Tio Frederick, 26, a lawyer and neighbor who has known Ms. Johnson for 20 years, called her amicable but tough and spunky. “I wouldn’t assume that if she got mugged she would let someone just take her stuff,” she said.

The encounter began about 3 p.m. on a sidewalk behind 470 Lenox Avenue in Harlem, the building where Ms. Johnson has lived for more than 20 years. The building has a doorman and many of its residents are professionals, but neighbors have recently complained about robberies.

Yesterday, as is often the case, friends said, Ms. Johnson had her small bichon with her, and was going to a nearby firing range.

There’s a firing range in Harlem? The closest one I could find to 470 Lenox Ave. was Seventh Regiment Rifle Club, 643 Park Ave., about 3.8 miles away according to Google Maps. That’s a long round-trip even in a powered chair. Hopefully she was going to get a taxi ride.

As she rolled out of the building, a man approached, and Ms. Johnson tried to say hello, said Lynell Bunce, 40, a friend who spoke with Ms. Johnson afterward. “She found him walking by, and she was going to say, ‘Good afternoon,'” Ms. Bunce said.

Instead of returning the greeting, the man looked away and walked past her without saying a word, Ms. Bunce said. Seconds later, Ms. Johnson felt an arm grab her violently from behind, tearing at her pocketbook and her necklace.

The man managed to get the necklace, but Ms. Johnson refused to let go of her pocketbook, the police said.

As the man choked her and struggled with her, Ms. Johnson pulled out her gun and fired a single shot.

The police said that Ms. Johnson did not have a criminal record and was not facing any charges. The permit she has for her gun allows her to have it in her home and to transport it to a range, which is what she was doing, they said.

She has a possession permit, not a carry permit, and she was transporting a loaded weapon. I’m not certain, but I believe that New York firearms law prohibits that. Let me cite the NYPD Web Page:

PREMISES LICENSE: IS A RESTRICTED TYPE OF LICENSE. It is issued for your RESIDENCE or BUSINESS. The Licensee may possess a handgun ONLY on the premises of the address indicated on the front of the license. Licensees may also transport their handguns and ammunition in SEPARATE LOCKED CONTAINERS, DIRECTLY to and from an authorized range, or hunting location. HANDGUNS MUST BE UNLOADED WHEN TRANSPORTING.

All emphasis is theirs. And quite emphatic they are, too. Ms. Johnson was not transporting her handgun, unloaded, in a locked container. Ms. Johnson was not transporting her ammunition in a separate locked container. Ms. Johnson was transporting her loaded .357 in a manner that put it easy-to-hand. Supposedly, she does so “often.” Ms. Johnson most definitely violated the law, but will the DA prosecute? Absolutely not. I think they learned their lesson there with Ronald Dixon. She’s an older black woman in a wheelchair who successfully defended herself against a career criminal. (I hate to be the one to say it, but as far as publicity goes the only PC box left unchecked on this one is “lesbian.”) No WAY are they going to do ANYTHING to put her in a position to point out how idiotic and anti-citizen New York’s gun laws are.

Though I’m certain that, after the hubbub dies down, her “premises permit” will be quietly revoked and her .357, which I’m sure was taken as evidence, will never be returned to her.

The man accused of attacking her, Mr. Johnson (no relation), was described by the authorities as a “robbery recidivist,” [Quelle surprise…] with nine previous arrests. He spent several years in prison for criminal sale of a controlled substance, and he was released in February 2003, according to Department of Correction Records.

Last night, Ms. Johnson was in no mood to celebrate what she did, friends said. Ms. Bunce, a longtime neighbor, said Ms. Johnson was frightened and threatened never to walk her dog again.

Wait… I thought she was “going to the gun range.” (Would you take your dog to the gun range? In New York City? Just asking.)

“She was very much the victim,” Ms. Bunce said. “She was scared for her life. She’s devastated.”

So, a resident of New York City, with a “premises permit” was supposedly on her way to the gun range when she was mugged, drew her (illegally) loaded firearm and defended herself from a much younger, physically fit, career criminal with a single shot from her .357 Magnum revolver, and the NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED IT!

I. Am. In. Shock.

And I’m quite certain you will never, ever hear about Ms. Johnson and her .357 in the pages of the New York Times again. I’m amazed she ever got there in the first place. After all, the perp didn’t take her gun away, and she wasn’t just another bloodstained chalk outline on the sidewalk.

UPDATE: Hell HAS frozen over! CNN picked up the story! Of course, with all the details stripped out.

Margaret Johnson, who lives in Harlem, has a permit for the weapon and does not face charges

That’s all you need to know, apparently.

KevinLeave a comment

One Step Forward, One GIANT LEAP Back…

So, Instapundit thinks that Femtroopers “will make the whole dressing-up-at-Star-Wars-conventions thing seem a lot cooler,” eh? I can certainly understand the impulse:

YOWSA!

Unfortunately, the whole “dressing-up-at-Star-Wars-conventions thing” is rendered eternally uncool – nearly to the point of self-immolation – at the sight of, well, (scroll down)….

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

THIS:

AAAAAGGGGHHHH!! My eyes! My eyes!

Whoever it is in that, that… suit, he/she/it ought to be burned at the stake! Kalashnikitty? OK. DARTHKITTY??? – SACRILEGE!!

The Mist from the RCOBâ„¢ is Getting Darker.

KevinLeave a comment

Two associated stories for your revision, one state-level, one federal. The state-level one:

Man arrested for ‘stealing’ own car

Stephen Janis, The Examiner
Aug 21, 2006 2:00 AM

BALTIMORE – Baltimore City police have a new crime on the books: Stealing your own car.

Just ask Keith Spence, a Baltimore City resident who was arrested when he was driving home from work in a car he bought with a tax refund.

“I couldn’t believe it was happening,” Spence said.

Spence, 28, said city police pulled him over in his 1993 red Cadillac Elderado(sic) coupe for a cracked rear window in February. Four officers dragged Spence and his two passengers from the car and said they were under arrest for stealing it, he said.

“I was listening to the radio from the back seat of the police car. It said a gray Cadillac sedan was stolen; mine is a red coupe. I guess the officer must have been color blind,” he said.

A photo of Mr. Spence with the title to his Cadillac:

Was the officer colorblind? Oh, the irony!

“I tried to tell them it was my car, but they wouldn’t listen.”

Spence and his two friends were arrested, and the car was impounded. Charged with one count of motor vehicle theft, Spence represented himself in court in June.

“I owned the car — I knew it wasn’t stolen,” he said.

Even though Spence had the title proving he owned the car, he said he was cleared of the charges because of the testimony of the owner of the stolen car.

“The whole courtroom fell out — even the judge laughed,” Spence told The Examiner.

Still, police sold Spence’s car at auction two months before his day in court.

Now Spence is without the car it took him a year to buy, and his lawyer, Roland Brown, said he is preparing to sue the city.

I damn well hope so. I hope he gets a brand-new Escalade out of it.

“Not only did the police violate my client’s constitutional rights by selling his car before the trial, but the case demonstrates that young black males in this city are blindly targeted by the Baltimore City police,” he said.

Brown said the case also points out problems with the city’s management of stolen vehicles. “You have to question why a stolen car would be sold at all,” he said.

Because the peons have no recourse?

(Appropriately named) Police spokesman Matt Jablow said police are investigating the incident.

“We’re looking into the circumstances surrounding why the car was sold,” Jablow said.

Spence said he only wants the Cadillac he worked so hard to buy.

“I loved that car.”

Are you pissed off yet? Wait till you read this one. A while back the BATF and other multiple-letter bureaus raided KT Ordnance. I believe Say Uncle has been on top of this story, but I found the current news at The Freeholder.

Here’s the latest update:

An Open Letter from KT Ordnance

August 24, 2006

As you know I had been raided by the ATF, FBI, and Canadian ATF back on June 7, 2006.

The Asset Forfeiture & Seized Property Branch of the BATFE has now contacted me. I have to date not been charged or arrested for anything. They sent this letter out on August 4 2006; I received it on August 22 2006. They gave me 20 days from date on the letter (not the date I received it) to file grievance (sent by certified, return receipt).

They obviously used the U.S. Postal Service

I also have to put up a 10% bond for the assets value (they valued the items at $11,350.00) just for the privilege of attempting to get the items back. They claim in the forfeiture letter that these items where “used or acquired in violation of federal law”, yet I’ve not been charged with violating any law.

Notice the “Disposal” afforded BATFE with no conviction or arrest.

(b) Disposal
In the case of the forfeiture of any firearm by reason of a violation of this chapter, no notice of public sale shall be required; no such firearm shall be sold at a public sale; if such firearm is forfeited for a violation of this chapter and there is no remission or mitigation of forfeiture thereof, it shall be delivered by the Secretary to the Administrator of General Services, General Services Administration, who may order such firearm destroyed or may sell it to any State, or possession, or political subdivision thereof, or at the request of the Secretary, may authorize its retention for official use of the Treasury Department, or may transfer it without charge to any executive department or independent establishment of the Government for use by it.

It seems they want to keep them for there own use, as some are desirable. I cannot help but think that these will end up in some politician’s private collection. You may view the items in question here: http://www.ktordnance.com/kto/showcase.php . The two items are the two 1911, 45 Cal pistols in the first three pictures (Abigail & Elizabeth). And there are others not pictured. All this with no charges filed, no arrest, and no conviction. I call this theft.

So do I

They can come in, steal your property, show no I.D., use a warrant that is so secret that the Sheriff could not see it, charge you with no crime, and then tell you, “we are keeping your property, and we will give/sell it to whomever we want.” If they do charge me (up to 5 years from now), and I win, will I get back my property that they sold/gave away to someone 5 years earlier? What do you think?

Well, Mr. Spence isn’t getting his car back, is he? At least he was charged first.

With the vague description of the items seized, it seems that they added items that are not mine, but who can tell with a description of “rifle” no serial number(s), no caliber, or any other descriptive markings (they did list the s/n’s for the two 1911’s). How do I know that they even are mine? Yet I must pay them 10% of the value just to find out. And they decide the value.

Cay you say, “racketeering” boys and girls?

This is a rogue agency, and must be stopped. I also feel that there may be a connection between the fact that I support JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) and GOA (Gun Owner of America), who are both actively trying to disband the BATFE. (see JPFO’s “The Gang” documentary)

Richard Celata

All emphasis in both stories are mine.

Remember when I wrote Pressing the “Reset” Button? I said at that time:

I think a lot of people are getting fed up with ever-increasing government intrusion into our lives. With our ever-shrinking individual rights. More than one of Jay’s respondents noted the apathy of the majority, though, and I agree. Government interferes lightly on a wholesale basis, but it does its really offensive intrusions strictly retail. So long as the majority gets its bread and circuses, it will remain content.

But not everyone.

—

I think more and more individuals will be pressing the “RESET” button in the future.

I understand the futility of the act, but I can also certainly understand the urge.

UPDATE: Oh, for Christ’s SAKE!

SEX OFFENDERS
Plan gains to publicly identify accused
Ohio panel backs registry proposal

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS – An Ohio legislative panel yesterday rubber-stamped an unprecedented process that would allow sex offenders to be publicly identified and tracked even if they’ve never been charged with a crime.

No one in attendance voiced opposition to rules submitted by Attorney General Jim Petro’s office to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, consisting of members of the Ohio House and Senate.

Excuse me, but if “they’ve never been charged with a crime” how the FUCK can they be identified as “sex offenders”?

Look, I hate child molesters with a passion. I think that when they’re caught they should be hung from gibbets and left to rot as an example to others who “can’t control their impulses” to try a little harder, but there is such a thing as “due process of law” and “jury of their peers,” and that’s what’s being thrown out the window here.

Of course it’s for “public safety.”

It always is.

KevinLeave a comment

Could it Be?.

Could it be that the population of Albion is finally waking up?

Concern as gun numbers soar in Suffolk

30 August 2006 | 11:58
DANIELLE NUTTALL

ANTI-GUN campaigners voiced their concern last night after figures showed the number of legally owned guns in Suffolk had soared by 40% in five years.

Color me dumbstruck.

Since December 2001, 2,530 additional firearms have been licensed in the county – making a total of 9,003 at the end of March.

But the figure is expected to be even greater next year as officers have already authorised a further 1,671 firearms, which are yet to be acquired.

Halleluja!

The large increase has alarmed anti-gun charity International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which called for tighter checks on those seeking permission to possess large numbers of guns.

Read: “DENY THE PERMITS!!! FOR ANY REASON, OR NO REASON AT ALL!!!”

Firearms are defined as lethal barrelled weapons of any description from which shots, bullets or other missiles can be discharged. Most approved rifles are designed for target shooting, hunting or vermin control.

Shotguns are covered by separate certificates but figures released by Suffolk Constabulary show there are now 41,848 legally owned in the county – an increase of 2% since 2001.

Even better – they’re buying rifles!

A spokesman for IANSA said: “It’s totally possible every single rifle has been carefully justified. But guns can end up being used illegally. Our concern is not that they are going to be used in gun grime in the sense of muggings in the street, but rather more likely seeing an increase in fatalities in domestic violence as mostly men obtain guns.

No, the concern is that law-abiding people will be armed – period. This makes the one-worlders wet their pants, because as David Hardy illustrates, to them a “right” is “what you may ask the government to do for you.”

“Guns are meant to be locked in a cabinet but there are plenty of stories of police going to a home and finding the gun unlocked and out. Simply because you have a safe doesn’t mean you’re actually storing it and they can potentially be stolen and find their way on the illegal market.”

No, guns are meant to be used. Locking them in a cabinet to secure them when they aren’t being used is a nice idea, but it is not the intent of their design.

Richard Kennett, Suffolk Constabulary’s firearm services manager, said the force carried out stringent checks on anyone wishing to legally own a gun.

He said: “Suffolk is a very rural county with large numbers of farming communities. Firearms and shotguns are not only used in agriculture but also in pursuit of country sports and by members of target shooting clubs. These sports appear to be becoming increasingly popular.

ABOUT BLOODY TIME!

“Anyone who has a firearm or shotgun is carefully vetted by the police and has to give good reason to possess each and every firearm and satisfy stringent safe keeping requirements before a licence is issued.”

Which is what the gun grabbers here continually tell us is “all they want.” But it’s not. They want us disarmed.

All of us.

While the number of actual firearms licensed has risen sharply in the last five years, other figures suggest the cause of this is mainly due to people owning more than one gun – rather than vast numbers of new people owning a weapon.

Always a grey cloud to go with that silver lining. That sounds much like what’s happening here, but perhaps these people can introduce others to shooting? (One can hope.)

A single firearms certificate can relate to more than one firearm, and the number of such certificates on issue by police in Suffolk has increased by just 5% since December 2001 – from 3,393 to 3,572 at the end of March this year.

Damn. I knew it was too good to be true…

The number of shotgun certificates granted has fallen from 17,048 at the end of 2001 to 16,648.

Shit.

Last night Liz Mort, eastern region spokeswoman for the Countryside Alliance, said shooting sports had become increasing popular, as had game consumption, which probably explained the increase in gun ownership.

I’d like to think so, but only a 5% increase in five years?

“Shooting sports are very popular. There are a lot of very well-run shooting clubs and shooting schools in Suffolk and all over East Anglia,” she said.

“Shotguns particularly are used by farmers in keeping down populations of pests. Obviously, game keepers and farmers use them for foxes, especially now there is a ban on hunting.

“Shooting sports are very popular” compared to what, I wonder? As to fox hunting being banned, well, no, not exactly. There’s a ban on hunting them with dogs while chasing them on horseback. Shooting them is still A-OK, as Mr. Free Market has been reminding us.

“A gun is a very important part of a farmer’s equipment. There are more illegal guns held within the M25 than the whole of the British Armed Forces.

The M25 is a highway that rings the city of London. An astute and most probably accurate observation by Ms. Mort. Not that IANSA gives a damn about that.

“Getting a gun illegally has never been easier. People who want to use them illegally do not get them registered. I think the police enforce the rules absolutely correctly.”

Well, I think the police shouldn’t be enforcing them against law-abiding citizens at all, but I’m a gun-nut Yank.

The spokesman for IANSA has called on the Government to bring forward the creation of a national register listing the details of all those who own a gun.

Which is, of course, the inevitable “next step,” since all the previous steps have been completely USELESS at the claimed aim of reducing “gun crime” and extremely effective at disarming the majority of the law-abiding public. Of course the NEXT step will be to ban anything that goes “BANG!” since banning full-auto weapons, short-barrelled shotguns, semi-auto rifles, pump-action shotguns, and all handguns hasn’t had any noticeable effect on violent crime committed with firearms in the UK.

“If you report a stolen car immediately, and it runs through a red light, they have the licence plate immediately and can trace it back within 10 seconds. It’s a bit crazy we have much better registration for cars than guns,” he said.

But if you run through a red light in your personal vehicle, they don’t take your driver’s license and your car, do they? And any other vehicle you might own. Hmmm? If someone steals your car, the police don’t come confiscate any other vehicle you may possess, and prohibit you from every owning or operating another, do they?

The guns versus cars comparison doesn’t work, but it keeps getting brought up.

He also said lessons could be learnt from the Canadian government which had made it a requirement for police to contact the partners or former partners of gun owners to provide a reference.

So a jilted former lover can deny someone the right to self-protection. Then again, we have that here with the Lautenberg Amendment. That means that abused spouses have to depend on useless restraining orders.

“It does flag up the possibility the person is not suitable to own a gun,” he said.

Isn’t this known as “prior restraint”?

“People feel rifles are not quite so dangerous in terms of crime but in fact it’s not a reason for not applying the strongest measures possible for the benefit of public safety.”

Ah, yes, “public safety.”

They know so much about “public safety” over in Old Blighty. I got my hopes up for no good reason.

Again.