It goes without saying that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
It also seems that 911 dispatchers—well, at least one 911 dispatcher in Oregon—are cleared to make what could be easily construed as paid political pro-government/anti-“austerity” commentary:
An Oregon woman was told by a 911 dispatcher that authorities wouldn’t be able be able to help her as her ex-boyfriend broke into her place because of budget cuts.
Shocking. And soon, people will also find out the government is incapable of providing for their retirement, assuming their bad debt, providing for their health care, giving a “free” education, and beyond. No matter the size of the welfare state, there’s always more that can be done than there is money to spend it on, even with Obamanomic levels of debt and deficits.
“Once again it’s unfortunate you guys don’t have any law enforcement out there,” the dispatcher said, according to Oregon Public Radio.
The dispatcher stayed on the phone with the woman for more than 10 minutes before the sexual assault took place.
Once again? How many times did the dispatcher made this speech?
And Is it possible that if the victim had a gun, things might have turned out better?
The perp was arrested after the crimes and pleaded guilty to kidnapping, sex abuse, and assault.
It would be interesting to note how big a SWAT capability the police have out there in the land of after-the-fact law enforcement (as opposed to crime prevention). Maybe small or even none, but maybe not.
Leadership is about establishing priorities (SWAT capabilities versus cops on patrol, for example) and everyone is a leader. At minimum, you lead yourself and one of your prime directives should be to keep yourself safe.
How was this week bad for the left? Let me count the ways:
- Anti-gun control types in the Democrat controlled Senate rejected the President’s pleading and made him look inept on politics, policy, tactics, and strategy.
- The President compounds his inept demeanor by appearing angry, weak, and unpresidential.
- Vacuous gun controllers follow the President and respond with empty and angry emotionalism.
- The Boston Marathon bombers aren’t white Americans.
- The President takes pains to keep from calling the Boston Marathon bombing an act of terrorism until someone tells him he looks like a fool by not to doing so.
- The President’s 2014 budget is upside-down with the public.
MilkbagMilbank is reduced to comparing Ted Cruz to Joe McCarthy.
- The global economy hasn’t looked this bad since
Jimmy CarterFDR occupied the White House.
- We don’t get fooled again becomes the cry of the not-left regarding the Gang of Eight’s (twice the fun of the Gang of Four!) 2 A.M immigration bill.
- The traditional media re-discovers the limits of their powers to protect the President.
- The traditional media shrugs off their epic post-Boston Marathon bombing fail.
- Liberal “elites” (an oxymoron, yes) demonstrate—again—they epitomize economic befuddlement.
- Revelations of an abortionist/butcher that the media has been shamed into addressing.
Was this this week any good for the left? It wasn’t a total loss: they co-opted Marco Rubio into serving as one of the point-men for the Senate’s
amnesty immigration plan and have the Boy Scouts looking to go gay. That and they got a kid arrested for wearing a t-shirt with a gun on it.
When the Hulk gets angry, he gets stronger. But as Andrew Malcolm’s lead says Senate gun defeat makes Obama angry–and weaker.
As usual in the Obama White House, this is all the fault of everyone except Obama. “This was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” Obama declared in a Rose Garden statement. “It came down to politics,” analyzed the Harvard grad.
We know more gun control (like an improved economy) was one of the President’s “all-in” items. We also know the President would never do anything based on politics. Never, ever.
The lesson for the country is while you can only be young once, you can be immature forever. Like an angry and weak President.
Alabama State Rep. Joseph Mitchell (D-Mobile) has demonstrated that he lacks the temperament, discernment, and intellect to hold public office. Or in other words, Mitchell went full retard, and perhaps—like actor Sean Penn back in the day, see below—he’ll also come home empty handed.
(Unfortunately for Mobile voters—and voters all across America—temperament, discernment, and intellect are not prerequisites to holding office.)
From Mitchell’s e-mail response to Eddie Maxwell of Jefferson County (Maxwell had initially asked state legislators to not introduce additional gun control legislation; Mitchell’s typos are left in place):
From: Representative Joseph Mitchell
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:59 PM
To: Eddie Maxwell
cc: (all members)
Subject: Re: Gun Control and our Constitutions
Hey man. You have used the word ‘except’ when I think you mean somethin’ else.
Hey man. Your folk never used all this sheit to protect my folk from your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed, imported criminal-minded kin folk. You can keep sending me stuff like you have however because it helps me explain to my constituents why they should protect that 2nd amendment thing AFTER we finish stocking up on spare parts, munitions and the like.
Bring it. As one of my friends in the Alabama Senate suggested – “BRING IT!!!!”
JOSEPHm, a prepper (’70-’13)
Hey man. Notably, the word “except,” referenced by Mitchell, did not appear in Maxwell’s initial e-mail. And given Mitchell’s self-evident ability to explain issues to his constituents, he is no doubt one of the thought leaders of his party.
Mitchell did a “reply all” on his response. Whoopsie: Maxwell’s initial e-mail had been a blast to all members of the state legislature.
Republicans were going to pin hope on Dr. Ben Carson. Democrats can now do the same with Joseph Mitchell, an articulate, wise, humble, and in all ways, model liberal.
Tip to Mitchell: never go full retard, especially if you aren’t acting.
Why is it so easy to mock the government and it’s ineptness/control agenda? Because of their myriad blunders, extra-legal activities, absurd overreach, and the routine recurrence of such things.
From Human Events:
New Jersey police and Dept. of Children and Families officials raided the home of a firearms instructor and demanded to see his guns after he posted a Facebook photo of his 11-year-old son holding a rifle.
“Someone called family services about the photo,” said Evan Nappen, an attorney representing Shawn Moore. “It led to an incredible, heavy-handed raid on his house. They wanted to see his gun safe, his guns and search his house. They even threatened to take his kids.”
Moore was not arrested or charged.
A Dept. of Children and Families spokesperson told me they could not confirm or deny an investigation or raid had taken place due to government regulations.
“The department has a child abuse hotline for the state of New Jersey and anybody can make a call to that hotline,” spokesperson Kristen Brown said. “We are required to follow up on every single allegation that comes into the central registry.”
Moore, of Carneys Point, is a certified firearms instructor for the National Rifle Association, an NRA range safety officer and a New Jersey hunter education instructor.
Due process? Unreasonable search and seizure? A right to bear arms? Where does it end? Maybe—a few years from now—with Mr. Moore being arrested and his child taken from his home.
Weeping and gnashing of teeth regarding TBTF banks is all the rage. Especially with the revelation that JPMorgan was additionally TBTBT (too big to be truthful) on its way to losing over six billion dollars:
Details of JPMorgan Chase’s multibillion-dollar trading loss — brought to light by a riveting and devastating report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations — demonstrate what a sham that is. Bankers aren’t acting cautious and chastened. Risk managers aren’t in the ascendance on Wall Street. Regulators remain their duped and docile selves.
The bank’s risk managers defended the traders and pooh-poohed the flashing red signals. The bank gave incorrect information to its regulator. Top executives then made misleading statements to shareholders and the public. All the while, the regulator served its typical role of house pet.
It’s great to have a house pet when it’s supposed to be a house pet; not so great when the house pet is supposed to be a regulator.
Similarly, it’s great to have a riveting and devastating report, but will the Senate take any action—which works—to change TBTF? Like making the TBTF banks quit playing with house (taxpayer) money when they lose? Consider a minor variation on the old rule: subsidize risk and you’ll get more of it…
The fact that TBTF is a wicked problem with no solution on the horizon means that legislators are unwilling to consider an issue with far more profound implications, our TBTF federal government.
We now have a federal government that’s literally (not Biden-speak) creating money from thin air (well, from electronic transactions), a government that will be absolutely unable to fulfill its safety-net promises (without rationing, massive inflation, default, and eventually, all three), and a government which is approaching full-fail mode on national security, respecting private property, and the rule of law, that is, the Constitution.
In the meantime, we have an army of political posers like Dianne Feinstein and her bureaucratic enablers who manage to tie up the Senate for days on end on ‘assault weapons’ (isn’t every weapon, by its nature, an ‘assault weapon’?). And when all’s said and done, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t even include Feinstein’s legislation in the basic bill. (Begin sarcasm font) But that’s OK because the bill itself is unlikely to ever see the light of day for a Senate-level vote, regardless. (Close sarcasm font)
As it regards our TBTF government, the solution is simple. Houston, we have a spending problem. (And as it regards our TBTF banks, the issue is one of risk and accountability and not spending.)
What do the federal government and Nancy Lanza—the deceased mother of Sandy Hook mass murderer Adam Lanza—have in common? They both appear to have supported the illegal “straw” purchases of guns for people who then used those weapons to commit crimes.
From the New York Daily News on Lanza:
The police in Connecticut believe that Lanza’s mother, a gun lover herself, was an enabler of her son’s increasing obsession with guns, that she was making straw purchases of guns for him all along, and ignoring the fact that he was getting more and more fixated on them.
And from ABC (via Univision) regarding the government’s role in Fast and Furious, the federal effort to allow illegally purchased guns to “walk”:
Univision News identified a total of 57 more previously unreported firearms that were bought by straw purchasers monitored by ATF during Operation Fast and Furious, and then recovered in Mexico in sites related to murders, kidnappings, and at least one other massacre.
If there was a Republican in the White House, Fast and Furious would be bigger than Watergate. Because we don’t, the scandal is smaller than the Benghazi tragedy. As a bonus for our liberal, It’s for the children, leaders, the Sandy Hook tragedy provides a governmental excuse for additional gun control restrictions.
Ironical, ain’t it?
A commissioning oath (they vary slightly between services):
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Hmmm. They look pretty similar don’t they? And yet, if military officers took its oath as unseriously as Dianne Feinstein takes hers, we’d have had non-stop military coups since our earliest days.
Which is a more professional organization, the military or the Congress, and which takes the oath more seriously? On whole, I’d argue it’s the military, hands down.
Through its obedience to the Constitution, it seems the military takes the Constitution seriously while far too many in the Congress—for example, in Feinstein’s recent posturing and political theater (‘Senator, I’ve been on this committee twenty years and I’ll ignore your question completely and I’m offended and I’m going to lecture you in the hopes you’ll shut up and I’m not a sixth grader, blah, blah, blah’)—take its own “wisdom” and authority self-seriously. After all, isn’t the wisdom of a fool still foolishness?
Similarly, we have the imperial president, one who ignores legislation in lieu of executive orders, who arbitrarily determines when the Senate is or isn’t in session, who uses taxpayer funded resources as personal accoutrements, who ignores Congressional oversight, who self-certifies his own death-by-drone list, etc.
When leaders rely on their own wisdom, outside the law and moral constraints, things end poorly.
A follow-up for Dianne Feinstein might be this: can’t every gun, at its most basic level, be used as an “assault weapon”? (Or is being classified as a hunting or target gun magically place the weapon into the non-assault column?)
If ordinary citizens “don’t need” certain weapons or large-capacity magazines, why should SWAT-teams—remember, the police were once known as officers of the peace—have them, especially given their record?
(On the other hand, I suppose the ruling class could also ask the same question about why a Big Gulp needs to be big, why a case of Mountain Dew needs to have 24 cans, or why anyone should be allowed to smoke… except the President, or not follow the Michelle Obama food pyramid… except Michelle Obama and her select.)
The differentiating factor regarding guns and weapons (and even non-weapons) of all sorts is this: what does the person with the gun/weapon intend to do? Ability (having a gun or weapon or even a non-traditional weapon like a hammer) without the intent to maliciously use it means nothing. That’s why we don’t worry about the nuclear weapons and delivery systems the British and French possess.
Feinstein has no interest in writing Constitutionally compliant law just as Harry Reid had no interest in performing the essential Congressional function of drafting a federal budget (until forced to). Her strategy is either that of political theater, or more likely, political control. A political control hypothesis would be that her preferred gun control laws might be upheld by the courts, thereby justifying it. Hey, let’s throw a bunch of legislative stuff at the wall and see if any of it sticks!
The lesson here: don’t bring a low-capacity magazine (that is, a Dianne Feinstein) to a high-capacity (that is, a Ted Cruz) intellectual firefight.
If you expect law enforcement to protect life, limb, and property, you’re operating at your own risk.
Law enforcement agencies have begun adopting a new policy on so-called “active shooters,” encouraging civilians to take safety into their own hands and take down gunmen who threaten them at work or school.
Too bad such policies weren’t in place at Fort Hood. Recall that “workplace violence” is suspected in the deaths of 13 from the Fort Hood community, the death of an unborn child, and where 29 were wounded. (Not that the Army can trust their soldiers to carry weapons on post, of course.)
The emphasis on police work these days, at least in Southern California, seems to be 1) “officer safety,” 2) paramilitary tactics, 3) jobs, and 4) cleaning up the mess.
To paraphrase a secular prophet, have lawyers, guns, and money, and not in that order.
The Obama Administration’s thinking is muddled on myriad topics, including the following (the listing is merely representative and is far from inclusive):
They think the Second Amendment is a malleable speed bump that can be obliterated by Executive Order while entitlements are a series of iron-clad, lock-box promises that are inviolate, even if they bankrupt the country and thus can’t be paid.
They’re for abortion but against the death penalty (death by drones excepted, see below). With abortion, no crime is committed and yet a child dies. With the death penalty, heinous crimes have been committed and one or more victims lie dead, an exhaustive judicial and appeals process has been followed, and the murderer won’t receive his/her penalty for twenty to thirty years (except by natural causes), if ever.
Note: There are two reasons the death penalty is despised, first has to do with a distrust of “the system,” and the second is the liberal mindset of few/no absolutes, also known as “who are we to judge?” And the Administration coherency falls apart quickly because “the system” is itself a part of government (of which, you’ll recall, more is always better) but yet if we can’t trust “the system” (that is, government) on things of great import, why should we trust it on anything else? Beyond that, if no one is to judge and there are no absolutes, why should we submit to the ideas of the President or any other “authorities”?
The Obama Administration is against money in politics, unless its their money in politics. If it’s their money, the Administration favors the permanent campaign (which benefits the incumbent, no matter how inept he or she may be).
They are obsessed with father-free “families” like Julia (and should ponder Obama’s own daddy issues) while being remarkably incurious and silent on the differences fathers make in their children’s lives with regard to poverty, crime, drug use, adding value to society, etc. The Administration favors the oxymoron known as “homosexual marriage” and is down with being married to big government, but fails to enforce on-the-books law like the Defense of Marriage Act the President and his minions don’t like. But if a man can father ten children with ten women, why can’t he instead have ten wives with one child each, especially if the state (that is, the taxpayers and/or their borrowing) ends up paying the bills?
The Administration want an educated populace but only if those doing the educating fall under the purview of the teaching unions. The fact that additional federal spending on education doesn’t improve student outcomes can be ignored. Alternatives to public education like home schooling, charter schools, and private schools are evil (or at minimum, violate the Constitution, which in this case, must be observed).
They want America to be bully-free unless they are doing the bullying through their “free press” (as long as it’s free to and for Obama). The Administration wants freedom of expression for Americans unless it hurts anyone’s feelings and then it must be suppressed. The idea that one man’s debater might be another man’s bully works in one direction, one that favors the Administration.
Free markets are good and important and helped make America great. Government control of these same markets will make things even better. The lessons of history can be ignored because this time it’ll be different.
There is no such thing as waste in government unless it’s in disfavored sectors like national security (not to be confused with Homeland Security, which is a very favored sector). All other government spending is “investment” whether in people (the children, the poor, students, illegal aliens, teachers, the elderly, etc.) or programs or the ever-popular and undefined topic of “infrastructure.”
Waterboarding three people is an evil analogous to the Holocaust yet ending around 3000 lives via the President’s license-to-kill drones is not subject to discussion.
Leaking national secrets is a crime of treason and treachery unless the Administration does it in a pre-election attempt to burnish their security bona fides with voters.
The President thinks raising the federal debt ceiling is irresponsible when a Republican is in the White House and thinks failure to do so is irresponsible when he’s in the White House.
There’s more of course, but why is it so difficult for the media to challenge the Administration of their many intellectual disconnects? Because they’re liberals and live in a bubble of liberalness; because they’re Obama fanboys and fangirls; because they were the victims of liberal (versus classical) education.
In the end, Dear Reader would like us to quietly submit to his authority and this Administration is about one thing: control. And remember, submission is for your own good.
The 5-year-old boy who faced suspension after building a gun out of Legos has had all charges dropped.
Jose Barbosa was a part of the after school program at the Kennedy Elementary School on New Cape Cod. His parents received a letter a few days ago that said Jose, who cannot read, write, or speak English, had received his first written warning for “using toys inappropriately,” and that upon a second warning, he will be punished.
Jose’s parents, Emir and Oman Barbosa, say the school took things too far.
“Because we’re a same-sex couple and are here illegally,” said Mr. Barbosa through an interpreter, “we decided that our rights, through Jose, were being violated.”
“The whole issue is tragic,” said the other Mr. Barbosa, also through an interpreter. “It isn’t like Jose’s giving guns to drug lords or sending F-16s to jihadists.”
The threat of legal action was enough for the Kennedy school to drop its warning. Instead, in a settlement, the school moved Jose into its Accelerated Preferential Program (APP), which is designed to get the children of same-sex, illegal couples into top-tier colleges nationwide at no cost to themselves.
“APP is a nearly new presidential initiative to help underrepresented student groups eventually gain acceptance into Ivy-type schools through the use of federally mandated quotas,” said Kennedy principal Lester Funk. “As it is, we’re pleased to accept Jose into the APP program and the threat from the federal government to pull all our funding unless we caved had nothing to do with our decision.”
Mr. Funk added, “Although we don’t condone the use of Legos, paperclips, rubber bands, sticks, or the likes to build pretend and potentially dangerous weapons, we’re pleased that this whole experience turned out to be a positive one for both Jose and his two fathers.”
(Philup Nubia and Zerxes Jones-Smith from PMNS’s Detroit Information, Research, and Translation Service enclave contributed to this article.)
On one hand, you have your American president who is all-in on Executive Orders, photo ops, and the standard leftist worldview in order to assert more government authority as it regards gun control. That standard leftist worldview can be largely summarized as follows: individuals outside the government ‘elite’ are too stupid, feeble, inept, and dangerous (to themselves and others) to make their own decisions.
On the other hand, you have your Obama Administration Attorney General who is all-in on legal maneuvering intended to thwart transparency as it regards a policy of illegality and death known as Fast and Furious.
Fast and Furious was, of course, a federally sanctioned operation which purposefully allowed about 2000 guns to illegally “walk” into the hands of drug cartels. These Administration sanctioned guns were then involved in killing a large number—at least 200—Mexicans and one U.S. Border Patrol agent. The devastation of Fast and Furious appears to be an order of magnitude greater than that of the Sandy Hook massacre.
If this were a Republican administration, it would be bigger than Watergate. Since the Administration is Democrat and their alleged good intentions, no matter how idiotic, count for more than actions, all is media-forgiven.
Fast and Furious and gun control: they’re for the children.
The Emperor has announced more gun control. The not-completely-related clip from Drudge:
A different clip, this one from the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law:
Discuss, consider yourselves conquered, and assimilate into the collective. It’s for the children.
A draft of the 19 gun control items President Obama intends to pursue via Executive Order were provided by a senior advisor who was not authorized to discuss their release. They are as follows:
- Assault weapon ban
- Handgun ban
- Long gun ban
- Shotgun ban
- Ammunition ban
- Magazine ban
- New lifelong waiting periods
- Making guns illegal in schools
- Making guns illegal in cars
- Making guns illegal in the outdoors
- Making guns illegal on private property
- Making guns illegal on government property
- Making gun possession a hate crime
- Making ammunition possession a hate crime
- Making magazine possession a hate crime
- Making concealed carry a federal crime
- Making open carry a federal crime
- Paintball gun ban
- Requiring all Americans wear body armor
A twentieth order, banning all pictures of guns, ammunition, and magazines, was considered but rejected due to First Amendment concerns.
Several prominent Democrat lawmakers say the proposals don’t go far enough, but that they are willing to support the President’s decisions while more restrictive legislation can be drafted.
Waivers to the Executive Orders—limited to Democrats only—will be subject to President Obama’s personal approval.
(Philup Nubia and Zerxes Jones-Smith from PMNS’s Chicago Information, Research, and Translation Service enclave contributed to this article.)
About six weeks ago, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher shot his girlfriend nine times and later turned the gun on himself. Bob Costas said if Jovan Belcher hadn’t had a gun—that is, if there were only more gun control laws—both Belcher and his girlfriend would be alive today.
It’s really impossible to say one way or another. For example, the Costas assertion may be true in part: Belcher might instead have beaten his girlfriend to death with Belcher remaining alive (beating yourself to death is a much more difficult task). Or Belcher still could have offed himself in any other number of conventional ways: drug overdose, car crash, hanging, monoxide poisoning, etc..
Now it comes out that Belcher’s blood-alcohol level was twice the level of legal intoxication at the time of his autopsy (and it was likely far higher when he committed his crimes). I’m shocked, shocked.
Could Costas suggest that if Belcher hadn’t been drinking, both he and his girlfriend would be alive today? Or that we need more drug control and more alcohol control?
Yes, Costas could suggest such a thing. But don’t hold your breathalyzer; remember who writes most of the checks.
Chicago isn’t the Windy City; it’s murder city.
So what’s a desperate politico like Rahm Emanuel (seen in his famous ‘jazz hands’ pose at right) to do? Have someone write more gun control laws. Otherwise, people might assign ownership of Chicago’s murder problem to the mayor or even worse for the Emanualists, someone might make a primary run at him.
After 506 homicides in 2012 and more of the same during the opening days of the new year, Emanuel said he was determined to stretch the legal limits of his local authority to prod Springfield into action.
Since murder is already illegal, what makes Rahm Emanuel think that more gun control will make things better? Oh, right, I forgot… he’s been libotomized.
Rahm, the problem isn’t the guns, it’s the murderers. As Emanuel might say, “Never let 506 crises in 2012 go to waste in stretching the legal limits of your authority.”
The left favors the creation and prosecution of so-called hate crimes.
Yet the left hates guns.
So why isn’t the left investigating, prosecuting, and convicting itself of hate crimes?
Instead, you’d almost think the left is a bunch of bitter clingers, hanging onto homosexual marriage, racial preferences, the living-breathing Constitution, and manmade global warming.
There are things that go together (think peanut butter and chocolate) and there are things that do not go together.
Somewhere near the top of the does-not-go-together list (across the board, but as it most currently regards gun control) has to be “Joe Biden” and “brain storming.”
Biden is an inherently unserious man and the fact Obama would choose him to “lead” a task force on government gun control is indicative of the fact Obama is just as unserious. The fact Biden would float the idea that the President could bypass the Constitution with an Executive Order is confirmation of such unseriousness.
Although GaffeMaster Flash clearly has little knowledge of the limits of presidential authority, one might think that his boss, the “Constitutional professor,” would.
Other members of the does-not-go-together Hall of Fame:
- Hillary Clinton and well-hydrated
- Chris Christie and low carb
- Chris Christie and principled fiscal conservative
- Lance Armstrong and drug-free
- Jack Lew and honest broker
- Chuck Hagel and popular Republican politico