Showing posts with label Lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lies. Show all posts

Monday, March 06, 2017

Liars Always Lie ... about "Assault Weapons"

John Lott's screed on "Assault Weapons Bans":

Court Upholds "Assault Weapon" Ban With Incorrect Facts | The Daily Caller:
(FEBRUARY 23, 2017)
Should “military-style rifles” be banned? On Tuesday, the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia – in a virtual party line vote – upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban.  In the 10 to 4 En Banc decision, Democrats supported the ban while Republicans opposed it.

Wednesday, February 08, 2017

Liberal Press Again Skews Facts About Firearms Violence Research

Gun Violence Researchers Race to Protect Data From Trump | WIRED:
(February 07, 2017)
 AROUND 11 AM Pacific on January 20th, while newly-inaugurated President Trump finished a celebratory lunch in the Capitol Rotunda, Magdalena Cerd  noticed something different about the White House’s website: All of its references to climate change had disappeared. Cerd  is an epidemiologist at UC Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program, which focuses on another politicized region of science—gun violence. So she knew what that meant.  (emphasis added)
Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't know what 'that meant'; but the insinuation that the Trump White House was censoring published (or private) research data about "Climate Change" is obvious,

There are a lot of details which are not examined or made clear in this amateurish article, which suggests that it should be ignored except as an example of unprofessional reporting.  It's more important for what information it does not provide, than for the bias which is revealed.

And even more telling, research data about "gun violence" was, as insinuated by this WIRED article, also at risk of having been "disappeared".

This article is a patent attack on the integrity of the Trump White house, for purely political reasons.
 “It was a real call to action,” Cerd  says. With links to climate data vanishing, she worried the same thing could happen to gun violence data on websites belonging to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “I was on Amtrak between Berkeley and Sacramento,” she says. “So I sent an email to Garen Wintemute saying we needed to start downloading our data immediately.”
Does that mean that the research data of the UC Davis' Violence Prevention Research Program was not regularly backed up?

This is difficult to believe, considering that tens of thousands of dollars were probably invested in the research.   The UC Davis Web Master wasn't encouraging the research teams to perform website and data backups at least daily (and more responsibly, more than once a day) or that the data wasn't available on an offsite data repository?   It's a base canard against the professional practices of a respected Educational and Research Facility.

Rather than to point the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate at UC Davis tech support, I find it much more likely that the UC Davis research program managed to lose (at least temporarily ... whether they recovered the data is not discussed in the article) valuable research data, and in an attempt to cover up their embarrassing lack of data integrity supervision has chosen to blame their oversight on an external agency.

Specifically, a political foe:  the current President of the United States of America.

The suggestion that the President would be responsible for a loss of research data is not only bizarre, but it is a sad commentary on whomever provided the 'background' information for this article ... and for the author, who rushed to judgement by printing innuendo instead of facts.

(In fact, the article suggests that the President had the power, and the resources, to delete 'research data' from multiple, federally funded, generally reliable websites such as the Center for Disease control!)

And the worst approbation is for the website, which allowed this article to be published without requiring the minimum standard of finding at least two sources which support the same interpretation.

I once considered WIRED to be a reliable data source, if only for its technical content.
Now that the website has undermined its own integrity, every single word they ever published will be tainted.

So long WIRED.   Nobody will ever trust you, since you turned Political.



(The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award)

Friday, July 29, 2016

... AND YOU CAN BELIEVE AS MUCH OF THIS AS YOU WISH

Anyone falsely portraying this gun control debate is 'trying to sell you something':
“There is a very specific type of gun that we want banned – none of them,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign. “All we are trying to do is keep guns out of the hands of people we all agree that shouldn’t have them. Whether you love or hate guns, you agree that a convicted violent criminal, domestic abuser, someone who is dangerously mentally ill, or a would-be terrorist should not be able to get their hands on guns.”
Hillary Clinton at DNC 2016 on 2nd Amendment: I'm not here to take away your guns | AL.com:
 Hillary Clinton told delegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention she had no interest in taking away anyone's guns but didn't want others to be a victim of firearm violence. Speaking in Philadelphia, Clinton said: "I'm not here to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I'm not here to take away your guns.

ATF HEAD: Our Job Is Not To Take Away People's Guns
In his first television interview, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Deputy Director, Head Thomas Brandon tells CBS' "Sunday Morning" that the agency's job is not to take away firearms from people, but to regulate weapons that can be misused.
"We're a small agency with a big job," Brandon tells correspondent Richard Schlesinger, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday, July 31.
Brandon also says his agency is hampered by not having the necessary technology. Congress has imposed constraints on ATF, such as prohibiting the agency from creating a computerized database of gun purchases.
Comment on this last:

Tommy, Sweetie ...  We believe you, really.

Actually, we don't.

We don't want you to database our purchases.  Can you guess why?

Because that is the backbone of registration, and registration leads to confiscation

I have a very specific instance to illustrate exactly WHY American Riflemen (gun owners) don't believe the lies of politicians.

I call it ....

The Locklear Subjugation:

I've written about this many times before.

In the late 1990's California Attorney General Bill Locklear published a 'finding' that the SKS rifle was a legal firearm, but required only that they be registered.

After honest, law-abiding citizens owning an SKS rifle registered their guns, Locklear performed an about-face and declared (arbitrarily, and without justification) that SKS rifles were NOT a legal rifle, and required that all SKS rifles be confiscated.

It's not so much  that the guns were confiscated; it's that a 'trusted public servant' took advantage of our trust, and then betrayed us

Those of us who are legal gun owners have since been reluctant to accept the assurance of politicians that we have nothing to fear from registration.   Locklear may have done more harm than good by his underhanded, pusillanimous, arbitrary mismanagement of office.  He had, in a single stroke of the pen, done more to undermine the American Rifleman's faith in his government than any other single official.

And his legacy lives on.

No American will ever again trust any politician who suggests that 'registration' is nothing more than a technicality.

Registration has been proven to be the first step toward confiscation, and nothing that any mere politician -spit- may ever say again in favor of registration will be believed.

And as for Locklear:  may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his scrotum.

(h/t: gunfeed,com)

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Hear the responses to Couric's 'embarassing 9 second lapse'

Katie Couric Gun Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview:

This website at the Free Beacon provides the audio tape which fills the 9-second gap in the Couric video.

Oh, go listen .. you know you want to.

For NPR, "Gun Control" equals "KumBaya"

Hillary Clinton is now running her Presidential Campaign on the bodies of young black men.

A recent article on the National Public Radio website exemplified why it is considered so demonstrably liberal that one wonders why it is publicly funded ... by our tax money.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Clash Over Gun Rights : NPR:

Here's the story of a black woman whose son was shot down
Queen Brown has told the story for years now, and it shows.
But it doesn't sound rehearsed. It sounds lived in, thought over, played on repeat over and over again. The story of her son, Eviton Elijah Brown, killed nine years ago, shot by a man Eviton didn't even know.
Eviton had been a student at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, or FAMU, before he was shot. He took some time off from school, to work after his girlfriend got pregnant. He was staying at home with his mother. One day, after a long double shift driving trucks, Eviton came home, exhausted.
His mother made him one of his favorite meals: a fried egg, cooked medium, with garlic powder on top, and some bagels, toasted in the oven. Then Queen Brown stepped out to run an errand. She would never see her son alive again. That would be the last meal she'd ever make for him.
"My son was tired when he died," Brown said. "But I felt good, because he wasn't hungry."
 That's touching.  And so pertinent.  Hillary thought so, too, so she invited "Queen Brown" to her "circle of mothers".  

(Eviton Elijah Brown sounds like the salt of the earth, and he probably was a very good young man.  Searching through the internet, it's almost impossible to find the details of his death; but the text you read above is copied word for word on almost every website found after a GOOGLE search of his name.)


 Which has nothing to do either with Hillary's Election Campaign, or the song-and-dance Hillary is using him to orchestrate.  (Does anyone think that Hillary just became BFF with his mom because they happened to meet at the same aerobics class and recognized that they had so much in common?)
The Circle of Mothers schedule includes not just seminars, but an aerobics class and even two hours of "glam time." "We do a lot of hugging," Queen Brown said of the event. "We do a lot of crying. We do a lot of back rubbing. We connect with ourselves."
 Clinton is trying to draw major distinctions between herself and Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, on guns. Trump was recently endorsed by the National Rifle Association, and when receiving that endorsement, he said the Second Amendment is "under attack" and "on the ballot in November."
Actually, what Hillary is 'trying' to do, is to present herself as a person who cares.
Which is kind of a difficult balancing act, as she recently tried to convince firearms owners that she cared about them, too.

That is amazing, since there are so many things she does NOT care about!

She doesn't care about The Law which as a U.S. Senator she has been sworn to protect and defend (eg: "The Email Scandals")'

She doesn't care about her husband (eg: "The Bill Clinton Bimbo Scandals")

She doesn't care about protecting American interests and personnel (eg: "The Bengazi Scandals")

She doesn't even care about National Security (eg: "The Email Scandals")

And she doesn't care about The Constitution, (eg: "The Australian Gun Ban")

What DOES she care about?


Actually, the The Most Important Thing That Hillary Cares About. is GETTING ELECTED!!!!!

Toward that end, she will do anything, say anything, espouse any public issue which makes her seem to be A Real person, even though she is not.

Getting back to the original premise of this story, National Public Radio (our tax money at work, remember?) is working hard to get Hillary elected.  And with a clear conscience, since Hillary seems to imply that this is The Right Thing To Do.

Toward that end, they are willing to do anything, say anything, air anything which will support that purely political agenda.

See what we did there?

We just equated NPR with Hillary's Political Agenda.

Which probably doesn't come as a surprise.

SO:  As A Public Service .. we present the following instructional video for your edification.

Watch, listen, and learn.  There will be a test on your understanding, in November.





z

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Unsafe At Any Speed: HillaryEMail

Clinton E-mail Trove Likely in Russian Hands | Frontpage Mag:
The mainstream media had sought to protect Hillary Clinton from revelations about Guccifer’s role in the hacking of her private e-mail server as long as it could. For example, NBC News reporter Cynthia McFadden had interviewed Guccifer from a Bucharest prison and elicited Guccifer’s first-hand account that Hillary’s server was “not safe at all.” NBC sat on this interview for more than a month. Only after Guccifer was extradited to the U.S. and appeared to be of interest to the FBI did NBC have to acknowledge the potential importance of what Guccifer had to say regarding Hillary’s unsafe server.
The repercussions of Hillary Clinton's "Not-So-Private" Email Server continue to resound,    Even though the  MSM gratuitously maintains its private job as Protector to the Queen, unsympathetic news/opinion websites dig deeper and discover increasingly ominous suggestions that her arrogance and self-perceived "I'm So Special I Don't Need To Obey The Rules" attitudes may have undermined the security of the United States.

If she is so mindful of her Liberal Preference as a candidate, how would she fare as the Leader of the Free World?

Barack Obama, you may soon be demoted to: "The SECOND Most Dangerous American President".


Hat Tip: Claire
 


Friday, April 08, 2016

An HONEST evaluation of statistics relevant to Firearm Deaths vs CAUSE

Okay, I'm asking you ... everybody ...
exactly HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED FROM FIREARMS IN 2015?

I'm guessing it depends on whose statistics you like.
(You know the Mantra: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!  Don't forget that.)

So, just as an EXERCISE, I'm going to survey the top THREE statistical results from Google, and report them here.

I'll let YOU decide who you believe.  Okay?
First question: how do we qualify the statics?
  • Deaths by Firearms
  • Homicide by Firearms
  • Death from Gun Violence
Okay, before I even LOOK at statistics, I'm going to give you MY definition of the three terms (and I warn you ... I don't expect that these three terms are going to cover the gamut of statistics; and I don't expect any of the statisticians to agree with my terminology. But I think that MY definitions are probably going to be very close to YOUR definitions.

Here are MY (entirely amateur, not affiliated with anyone who claims to know what he's talking about) definitions:

DEATH  BY FIREARM:

"ANY DEATH where a Firearm is determined to be the ultimate instrument of termination-of-life will be defined as Death By Firearm; death at the hand of a Law Enforcement Officer; Death at the hands of Serving Military within or without the Continental United States are included.  Also included; suicide, accidental death, including those deaths of 'innocent bystanders' in a situation which, lacking intent to murder, would be considered a Homicide .. as specifically included here.  It may seen redundant, but to be clear: the categories "HOMOCIDE BY FIREARMS" and "DEATH FROM GUN VIOLENCE" are specifically included here.
Homicide by Firearms:
"ANY DEATH where a Firearm is determined to be the ultimate instrument of termination of life, and which cannot be defined as "accidental" or "suicide" or "justifiable" (including "killed by a Law Enforcement Office", but rather is defined as "death by firearm at the intentional hand of another person", is defined as a HOMICIDE by FIREARM.

The intention to kill another person is specifically included here.
Death from Gun Violence is specifically NOT included here, unless the determination to kill is a primary OR SECONDARY motivation to shoot a living person during a "Shooting Incident".
.  Note that "homocide" defines intent.  Note also that 'accidental shootings" may fall under this vaguely defined category, if there is no clear determination of intent, but the circumstances have not been adjudicated as "other than intentional".  Thus, the numbers in this category may change hourly as new decisions are made and new judges are seated..

Death from Gun Violence:

A death where a firearm is determined to be the primary instrument of termination of life will be defined as "Death From Gun Violence", as long as the following limitations are observed:
  • The person wielding the firearm MAY BE the person who dies:  which is to say, suicides are specifically included in this count.
  • For the specific purpose of this survey, death by a Law Enforcement Officer and death by a private citizen who fires to terminate a murder or violent crime (which itself involves a gun, and therefore is Ipso Facto a potential "death by gun violence" situation) are two specific instances where "death by gun" are not included.

Okay, here are the results!:


Monday, April 04, 2016

Gun control in Oregon; Ginny Burdick

Gun control: Stymied in 2016, Oregon Democrats vow to try again in 2017 | OregonLive.com:


... And Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, at a forum hosted by the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety, reiterated her support Wednesday for enacting gun-violence restraining orders. That idea, already in place in California, would create a court-sanctioned mechanism for removing guns from people believed to be at risk of harming themselves or others.

In case I didn't make myself clear in an earlier post ....

... any Oregon measure which Ginny Burdick supports is certain to be a measure which undermines the constitutional freedoms of Oregonians.  Or, in other words, a lie.

Just Saying.

And I'm not the only one.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Every armed person is someone just waiting to become a criminal

According to YDR.COM: "Every armed person is someone just waiting to become a criminal":

 In reality, every armed individual is someone just waiting to become a criminal. If you believe so strongly in the Second Amendment, then you should arm yourself with a musket and a flintlock pistol, because that is what the founders had in mind when they established the Constitution.
Oh.

Okay, thank you so very much for clarifying the issue of the "Embarrassing Second Amendment".

I had (foolishly, it seems) thought it had something to do with the  individual right of each (person) to protect his/her person, family and property.   You know, like the First Amendment acknowledged the right of each individual to speak their mind, regardless of how inconvenient and embarrassing those thoughts might be to someone who did not agree with them.

I certainly did not understand that, while the First Amendment still protects the right of free speech regardless of the media (such as television, radio, etc. which did not exist in the 18th century when the constitution was written), the Second Amendment does not protect semi-automatic weapons, "assault rifles", etc. because they did not exist in the 18th century.

Therefore, while everyman may carry a pencil (or an IPOD, or a cell phone, or a pocket camera), he may not carry a 1911 style pistol (for example) because eighteenth century technology RULZ!

It had .. and I'm being entirely candid here ... never occurred to me that the First Amendment Rights were predicated on the CONCEPT of thought, but Second Amendment Rights are predicated on TECHNOLOGY.

Okay, I've got that clear in my mind now.  And I cannot tell you how grateful I am to YDR.COM for clearing up that niggling little difference between the First Amendment to the Constitution and the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The things you can learn from the Internet.

Oops.  Sorry ... they didn't have that Internet thingie in the 18th Century, did they?

Okay, so I guess you're just full of shit.

Never mind.

Thursday, February 04, 2016

The LIE that won't die

Americans 'much likelier to be killed by guns' than people in other countries | Americas | News | The Independent:
Funding for gun-related research was decimated after it was targeted by the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress, a decision that reverberates two decades later. “We have to understand what the problem is, how to approach the problem, and do our approaches work,” Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, told the Trace last year about the problems involving funding for gun research. “And we just don’t know anything.”
(H/T: War on Guns)

Liberals and other control-freaks will say anything to make their point, and when that's not enough they just hide the truth.

In this case, the lie is that the NRA "decimated" funding for gun-related research.  Well, in a sense that isn't so much a lie as it is an obfuscation.

Truth is the Center for Disease Control (a federal agency) took it upon itself to define guns as a "disease" and through a process of addressing firearm deaths as the consequence of a disease, declared:

GUNS ARE BAD!  THEY KILL PEOPLE!  WE SHOULD STOP THIS DISEASE!

... or words to that effect.

The NRA pointed out that the 'research on guns' at CDC was biased, in that it ignored the benefits of firearms ownership ... not the least was that guns are very often used by honest, peaceful citizens in defense of themselves, their family, their homes and their property.  And oh, by the way?  Guns are inanimate objects.  Sometimes the people who pick them up do bad things with them, but that's no reason why you should be calling them a "Bad Dog!"

Part of the "research" at CDC was a reliance on the flawed data from the "Kellerman" study.  The CDC didn't bother to evaluate the data in terms of the way it was gathered or the questions it asked; they just took the whole thing and painted it with a patina of legitimacy.  The pre-determined conclusion was scientifically flawed from the beginning.

In a word, the CDC took a lie and gave it legitimacy, with malice aforethought.
Because they don't like guns, and they don't think people should have them.
(Damn the Constitution, we're the CDC and we know what's best for you!)

As a consequence, when the government (probably the Office of Management and Budget) investigated NRA's complaint, they discovered that it was factually correct and as a consequence CDC got it's wrist slapped.   They (CDC) could research anything they wanted, but when they openly promoted "gun control" based on fallacious assumptions, they had exceeded their mandate.

Essentially, CDC was told "say anything you want, but we're not going to pay for it and you can't release findings as a federal agency".

Yes, in this specific instance, the NRA did take an active role in reining back an out-of-control federal agency.  And if the funding which the CDC applied toward "gun control" research represents ten percent of the entire amount spent on that subject through-out the country, that would be defined as a 'decimation' in the strictest sense of the word.

However, "gun control research" continues unabated in this country.

The quote which begins this screed comes from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center ... which is funded 'differently' from the CDC.

To paraphrase the gun-control crowd:
"Nobody wants to take your research grant from you; we just want to make sure it's used wisely."

(may I smirk now?)

Post Script:
In the new study, Grinshteyn and Hemenway wrote that their research shows that the country “suffers disproportionately from firearms,” ultimately coming to this conclusion: “These results are consistent with the hypothesis that our firearms are killing us rather than protecting us.”
Actually, this country does not suffer from firearms at all ... firearms are just sitting around waiting for someone to tell them what to do.  Much like "immigrant laborers" at the corner of First and Main waiting for a guy with a pickup who needs a bunch of grape pickers.

Except, of course, that the guns are legal.
Which is not the case in most of the other 49 countries in the original study, where guns are highly regulated so that only bad guys can have guns.  Which they use to kill good people who are unable to defend themselves; while in America good guys with guns sometimes kill bad guys with guns, and we have a lot of  THEM here, just like everywhere else.  The difference is remarkable, but not recognized in statistics.
Just saying.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Welcome to Hell!

Here's your Hand-Basket:

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos:

. BREAKING NEWS: FRENCH AUTHORITIES IDENTIFY one of the eight Paris assailants who created havoc in the city Friday night, killing 128 people and wounding more than 300 others, as 29-year-old Ismael Omar Mostefai, according to Sky News. Mostefai was reportedly a French citizen who was living in Chartes, just southwest of the capital.
.  CONFERENCE HEATS UP: Obama expected to come under pressure for more
ISIS involvement at G20 summit
. ARRESTS TIED TO PARIS ATTACKS: Belgium makes three arrests linked to Paris attacks
. NO MERCY: France's Hollande responds to Paris attacks that leave at least 129 dead
. DC VIGIL: French ambassador to US joins hundred in Washington vigil for those killed in Paris
. KERRY: World leaders take step to end
Syria war and spreading terror concerns, but disagreements persist
. LIVE BLOG COVERAGE OF PARIS TERROR ATTACKS | France-bound plane grounded after tweet
.VIDEOS: French president confirms
ISIS behind attacks | ISIS claims responsibility for Paris attacks
. VIDEO: Heavily armed police gather outside Paris hotel
. 'IT WAS CARNAGE': Survivors describe horrific scene in concert hall

I know, it's  easy to blame this on "Extremist Muslims", but according to at least one source, it's NOT THEIR FAULT!

SOLON: It's all the fault of Right Wing Exploitation!

According to that article in Solon:

We must mourn all victims. But until we look honestly at the violence we export, nothing will ever change

,,,
Any time there is an attack on civilians in the post-9/11 West, demagogues immediately blame it on Muslims. They frequently lack evidence, but depend on the blunt force of anti-Muslim bigotry to bolster their accusations.
Actual evidence, on the other hand, shows that less than two percent of terrorist attacks from 2009 to 2013 in the E.U. were religiously motivated. In 2013, just one percent of the 152 terrorist attacks were religious in nature; in 2012, less than three percent of the 219 terrorist attacks were inspired by religion.

Actually, Americans have been rather sensitized by the events of 9/11/01.
Which was .. ahem ... universally acknowledged to have been caused by Muslim extremists.  Most of whom came from privileged backgrounds.

mmm   I'm not convinced that this isn't a "Three-Percenter".   We've had other news reports since the Salon article was published which suggest that it wasn't an attack by Christians, or Jews, or Budists,  And I didn't see anyone in Saffron Robes wielding an AK47 in the photos.

Actually, some people are relating this to the 2008 Mumbai attacks.  But what do they know?

The article goes on to state:

As soon as the news of the attacks broke, even though there was no evidence and practically nothing was known about the attackers, a Who’s Who of right-wing pundits immediately latched on to the violence as an opportunity to demonize Muslims and refugees from Muslim-majority countries.
In a disgrace to the victims, a shout chorus of reactionary demagogues exploited the horrific attacks to distract from and even deny domestic problems. They flatly told Black Lives Matter activists fighting for basic civil and human rights, fast-food workers seeking liveable wages and union rights, and students challenging crippling debts that their problems are insignificant because they are not being held hostage at gunpoint.
More insidiously, when evidence began to suggest that extremists were responsible for the attacks, and when ISIS eventually claimed responsibility, the demagogues implied or even downright insisted that Islam — the religion of 1.6 billion people — was to blame, and that the predominately (although not entirely) Muslim refugees entering the West are only going to carry out more of such attacks.

Oh, that's so slick   It's a work of art to conflate "Black Lives Matter" and the slaughter of over a hundred innocent victims in Paris.

But since I'm a WASP, I guess it's obligatory for me to jump to the conclusion that because this massacre was aimed at a group of citizens of a nation which has been accepting muslim refugees in record numbers in the last few years, the violence has been due to the national reluctance to support said muslim refugees.

Most of those refugees, though, have 'forted up' in neighborhoods where even the French police are loath to enter.
 The Washington Times - Wednesday, January 7, 2015
A backdrop to the massacre in Paris on Wednesday by self-professed al Qaeda terrorists is that city officials have increasingly ceded control of heavily Muslim neighborhoods to Islamists, block by block.
France has Europe’s largest population of Muslims, some of whom talk openly of ruling the country one day and casting aside Western legal systems for harsh, Islam-based Shariah law.
“The situation is out of control, and it is not reversible,” said Soeren Kern, an analyst at the Gatestone Institute and author of annual reports on the “Islamization of France.”
That sounds like it could have been written on November 14 rather than January 7, doesn't it?

But no, it's part of the reporting on the Charlie Hebdo attack.  It's not as if we ... and Paris ... hadn't been warned.

Apparently, it's reactionary to assume that if Muslims attacked Paris in January, and people using the same (or similar) terror tactics and equipment attack Paris in November ... oh, I can see that I am SO NOT Politically Correct, for I am jumping to conclusions before sufficient evidence has been ascertained.  (But after all, I remember this "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" racist cultural heritage that drives my knee-jerk reactions to large-scale public massacres by groups of individuals.)

Unfortunately, France continued its irresponsible Right Wing Exploitation (apparently by allowing unrestricted immigration of Muslim 'refugees'), and so of course it deserved every thing it got.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Would you trust this man to babysit your children?

Man Arrested for Sexual Attack on 12-Year-Old Girl - Story | WTXF:



I wouldn't trust him to hold my coat.

According to investigators, Payne was left alone to babysit the 12-year-old girl and her four-year-old brother.  Investigators say Payne chased the 12-year-old through the home.  Broke down a bathroom door where she was hiding and attacked the girl in front of the four-year old. And investigators say the mother, who was at work, 

Some people are just born bad.  And sometimes (as in this case) they try to TELL us ... but we just don't listen.

There was a day when we were taught to trust our judgement; now the Liberals tell us to be "non-judgmental".

THIS us what happens when "feel-good" Liberal attitudes cause us to over-ride our common sense.

We can't know the whole story, but there is prima facie evidence that the man meant no good, right from the start..

It's written all over his face.


Tuesday, October 20, 2015

In Chicago, Crime goes DOWN at the same rate as it's going UP! *(KEWL!)*

Chicago gang shootings go on as Mayor Emanuel boasts crime at 'record low' | US news | The Guardian:
October 14, 2015
Chicago’s yearly homicide total has in recent years been about half the 40-year high of 943 that was reached in 1992, thanks largely to a sharp drop in domestic murders. Yet the number of killings linked to gangs has consistently been higher than back then, according to figures compiled by Professor Wesley Skogan, a crime and policing expert at the city’s Northwestern University. FBI director James Comey said during a visit this week that Chicago had a “more ingrained and sophisticated street gang structure than many American cities”, such as New York, which was once equally feared but now has a murder rate about a quarter as high. “They’re old, they’re embedded in a part of the culture in this city, and it’s an enormous challenge,” he said.
Okay, Mayer Rom says that Crime in Chicago is going down, right?
Now, let's compare that press release to this one:

Chicago mayor blames cops for spike in crime | Fox News Video:
Oct. 14, 2015 - 0:42 - Mayor Rahm Emanuel says 'fetal' force the reason for increased crime
(Remember, that's a Fox video)
No, I don't understand what a 'fetal' force is, either; but okay ... crime is going UP?   On the same day it's going DOWN?   But one thing is for DAMN sure ... it's not your fault!!!

Welcome to Chicago, Mr. Mayor; you're a natural-born Chicago Politician!

You're blaming crime on the cops ... who you don't have the money to pay a living wage.

And so ...


The more than $700 million in tax increases is a band aid. It will kick the can down the road a few years - until the next crisis arises. Then, lacking the will to cut the budget or the imagination to avoid a tax increases, the same "solution" to the problem will be applied and the viscious  cycle will continue.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/mayor_emanuel_faces_tax_revolt_in_city_council.html#ixzz3p6gRddxR
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Just Because ...

Just because you're not happy with unrestrained immigration reform, doesn't mean you're a Bad Person.

You just might be "Not-A-Democrat" ... and maybe you want to still have a voice in how this country will be run in the next decade.


Ann Coulter - September 30, 2015 - THE WAR ON AMERICA TURNS 50:

The 1965 act brought in the poorest of the poor from around the globe. Non-English-speaking peasants from wildly backward cultures could be counted on to be dependent on government assistance for generations to come. 

Kennedy and other Democrats swore up and down that the new immigration law would not change the country's demographics, but post-1965-act immigrants are nothing like the people who already lived here. 

As Pew Research cheerfully reports, previous immigrants were "almost entirely" European. But since Kennedy's immigration act, a majority of immigrants have been from Latin America. One-quarter are from Asia. Only 12 percent of post-1965-act immigrants have been from Europe -- and they're probably Muslims.
Apparently, the "American experiment" is actually some kind of sociological trial in which we see if people who have no history of Western government can run a constitutional republic.

RTWT

The good news?  Often, second generation Americans are wise to the chicanery, and want to protect their new-found country from unfettered vote-loading.

It's hard to count on that, though.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

EVIL gun laws in Arizona!

David Codrea at The War On Guns takes note of an article in the International Business Times which bemoans the lax gun control laws in Arizona which allows almost ANYONE to own and use a firearm!!  And they don't need a license to own a firearm, or to register the gun, or ANYTHING!
(Imagine that .. what is this country COMING TO???)

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on whether you wish the author to be considered an authority, or at least a competent reporter of "facts"), the author makes some serious errors in these  .. well, facts!

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the testicles of liberal east-coast journalists!

Phoenix Freeway Shootings: Amid Manhunt, Arizona Gun Laws Are Among The Country's Most Lenient:
Most guns are legal in Arizona, which only outlaws firearms that shoot more than one shot automatically from one pull of the trigger without a manual reload, rifles with barrels longer than 16 inches, and shotguns with barrels longer than 18 inches.
{emphasis added}

Obvious (to people who are either smarter than a stump, or are conversant with gun-control legislation over the past 50 years), the usual gun control laws regarding barrel length have been applied to barrels SHORTER than a given length ... not LONGER. (Shorter barrels make it easier to hide or disguise long-guns, or so we are told by people who aren't a helluva lot smarter than this author.)

And these restrictions are imposed at a federal level .. they are not unique to the state of Arizona.

Are we to assume that the Liberal Press is stupid, or deliberately skewing the facts to fit their agenda?

Perhaps the two categories are not mutually incompatible.

Thursday, July 09, 2015

The Importance of Being Earnest

Sometimes you receive email from someone who sounds so real and the content is so earnest, you cannot resist replying ... even if the content is so bogus that you just KNOW it's a sham.  But you must resist the temptation anyway.

I recently received the following email:
Dear *****  
I just sent you an email note and apparently this got confused with sp*a*m. You may recall my earlier correspondence regarding our defending gun rights, including the work by our Research Fellow Stephen Halbrook, the renowned Second Amendment legal scholar, author and attorney:
xxxxx DELETED LINK TO STEPHEN HOLBROOK PROFILE AT INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE xxxxx
Hence, would you be so kind as to advise your email provider to remove your spam complaint?
Thank you again!
Best regards,
David
[obfuscatory text and highlighting added]

He didn't send me a previous email, nothing was 'confused' (my software works differently), and if an earlier email had been quarantined by my security software, then this email would have suffered the same fate.

I have not, of course, been corresponding directly with any member of the Independence Institute.  The premise is bogus, as is the entire email.

Monday, June 15, 2015

It's A Rare Gun That Fires Without A Finger On The Trigger!

The Captain's Journal  Police Officer Negligent Discharges:

Accidental gunshots by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies have more than doubled in two years... The jump coincides with the department’s move to a new handgun that lacks a safety lever and requires less pressure to pull the trigger.They are blaming it on a SA/DA pistol because of the heavy trigger pull for the first round (although I have to say that 6-8 pounds isn’t exactly a light trigger pull for the M&P). Thus they have trained officers to keep their fingers on the trigger of their handguns when they deploy their firearm.  They say so.
[Emphasis added]

Buncha California Liberal Snits blame the gun when it's their mandated policies that are the problem.
Snarf!
Who could expect any more responsibility from the adolescent twerps who run  control  screw the state today?

Keep Your Booger Hook Off The Bang Switch!
keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot at the target.

Everything else is secondary, although some shooting rules sets seem to make this secondary to "keep your gun pointed in a safe direction'.

It's difficult to prioritize gun safety rules, we know that.  But when some "administrators" define the Rules of Engagement and deliberately ignore known safety rules,  it reveals them for the total idiots they are when the mandate unsafe practices.

And when the shit hits the fan, they blame the guns rather than to accept their own responsibility?

Well .. .it's California.

Nobody expects them to be sane, but I'm pretty sure that the officers who are required to live within their rules know their masters administrators are idiots.

Given that there don't seem to be a lot of 'accidental shootings', one wonders if the cops on the beat aren't letting a few bullets fly just to demonstrate how inane their bespoke procedures are.


Sunday, May 31, 2015

CHECK FIRE! (Where's The Target ... WTF?)

U.S. bombers hold fire on Islamic State targets amid ground intelligence blackout - Washington Times:

 Nearly 75 percent of U.S. bombing runs targeting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria returned to base without firing any weapons in the first four months of 2015, holding their fire mainly because of a lack of ground intelligence and raising questions about President Obama’s key tactic in pushing back an enemy that continues to expand its territory in the war zone.
President Obama will not put troops on the ground to ensure that bombing attacks can apply effective fire against ISIS and other extreme terrorist groups.   And yet he continues to order high-altitude bombing attacks against .. ghost targets.  It "looks good in video", but in Real Life it's a waste of time and resources because .. ineffective!

Montrose Toast:
He either fears his fate too much,Or his deserts are small,That dares not put it to the touchTo gain or lose it all.

Since America (in the person of President Obama) has consistently demonstrated lack-of-resolve to directly attack ISIS, what the fracas are we doing in Iraq and Syria to stop their pernicious attacks on innocents?  Either execute war against our enemies, or yield the battleground to them entirely!

And thus, prove that America is a Paper Tiger,

Saturday, May 30, 2015

The myth of the hero cop

The myth of the hero cop: Police unions have spread a dangerous message about America’s law enforcement officers.:
It’s hard to prosecute cops. There are two main reasons for this: The first is the special deference that jurors, judges, and prosecutors show officers thanks to the widespread perception that they are heroic public figures valiantly trying to protect us. The second is the bevy of special laws around the country that are designed to shield police officers from the very tactics the police regularly use on ordinary suspects.
Thank you,  of Slate, for your in-depth review of all the reasons why (in your mind) police are not subject to the same scrutiny as 'common citizens' are ... because of "special laws .. to shield police ... "

One thing:  yes, there are "Bad Cops", and as we are all human I'm pretty sure that most cops are flawed.

So .. three questions:

One:  Do you have a gun to protect yourself?  Or do you rely on 911 in case you are assaulted?
Two: Have you ever been mugged?
Three: have you ever been arrested?

The thing is, you appear to reside in New York City.
And .. the bromide is:

A Liberal is someone who has been arrested.
A Conservative is someone who has been mugged.

So, although you have not offered any "full disclosure", we're assuming that you were arrested for drug charges?  Marijuana?  Or a more mind-altering substance?  (I'm guessing something more powerful than Weed .. cops generally trend to ignore Grass arrests, because there are too many of them among the Liberal Community to do anything more constructive than issue a 'ticket', which can incur nothing more onerous than a fine.  Which would explain the grudge you obviously have against police officers.)

Getting back to Question 1:  I'm guessing that you rely on the police to protect you.  Which they cannot do, of course, because those "highly paid" public servants have too many clueless citizens to
"Protect and Serve".

So, you don't have a gun.  Well, of course you don't.  You live in New York City, the town that FORCES you to rely on local police to protect you.  But you don't appreciate that, because you know that there are 10,000  (plus)  police who are paid FAR too much money for giving you very limited protection.

Please note that the reason why you cannot have a gun to protect yourself is because your liberal friends made it illegal.  Not the cops; your Liberal Friends.

Clue-bat notice:  The police aren't there to protect you.  They are there to solve crimes, and arrest miscreants.  Perhaps you are uncomfortable with that situation.  I don't blame you.  If I relied on the cops to protect me, I would be similarly disappointed that they are NOT liable for failure to protect you from assault.  Or robbery, or anything else.  Is that the reason you're so down on cops, Binky?

Given the restraints on cops, it's no wonder that you are disillusioned.  That's okay .. it's not their fault.  Your Liberal Representatives have made sure that you can't sue cops when they can't protect you.   Someone seems to think that personal protection is YOUR job, not the cops.

Let's get to the part where you claim that the police are corrupt and .. what was your term?

Unfairly protected

Oh, yeah; we just covered that.  You think they are "unfairly protected"; but the fact is that if you are mugged, the cops don't much care.  The same if someone steals the radio out of your car (which you don't OWN, because you know it's too dangerous and too expensive to own a car in NYC because .. theft) the cops have no way to deal with minor thievery.  Beat Cops take reports, and pass them on.  Beat Cops are also the first responders, and when it's the murder of an infant in her crib (for example), they have to go home and tell their wife that it was 'just another  day on The Job", and hope they don't keep her awake when they can't sleep that night because of the images that they can't wipe out of their memory .. which lasts for decades.

Yep.  It's an easy job, and they are certainly overpaid.

You complain that:  " ...  the average beat cop costs the taxpayers more than $150,000 per year."
Sounds like pretty good bread.  So, why didn't you apply to the police department, go through the training regimen, and become a cop?  By your perception, it's an easy job with little or no risk, and the pay is great!

Could it be because you just don't have the guts to put your life on the line for your fellow New Yorkers? Or you don't care to deal with the 'seamy underside of New York" on a daily basis?

Strange .. you don't seem to consider that it's a risky business, underpaid and under-financed, and the only way cops can make a decent living it to volunteer for overtime hours.  Often this is just standing in the rain for hours on end, directing traffic.  But sometimes that's actually facing people who are violent, insane, vengeful and .. oh, did we discuss that POLICE ARE TARGETS FOR BAD MEN?

But you're pretty well focused on that $150,000 per year paycheck ....
... even though you don't seem to have considered the horrible working conditions they regularly endure to feed their family.  And BTW .. $150,000 year is pretty much what sanitation workers in major cities draw.  They all get The Big Bucks because nobody would take that nasty-ass job if they didn't get compensated in proportion to the unsavory nature of the job they accept.

The reason for the one hundred fifty dollar paycheck (which requires a TON of overtime in the cesspool which is a major city) is that it's a crappy world, and these folks are on the front line .. they see the disincorporated body of the 29-year-old executive who just jumped from the 80th floor of his executive condominium, and they go scour the block to pick up the pieces.  

Then the detectives wander by, take reports, and go back to talk to the Captain.

And then some asshole like you writes an article complaining about cops who are not heroic at all.

You are SUCH a jerk.  If you spent one day doing what these stolid men and women do EVERY DAY, you would puke your guts out and spend the next week in bed.  With the covers over your head.

And you would hate yourself.   Rightfully.



Baltimore’s streets are quiet again. Baltimore’s state’s attorney Marilyn J. Mosby moved quickly in securing indictments against six police officers in the death of Freddie Gray, and her decisive action has calmed the city for now. But getting a grand jury to indict police officers is a lot easier than getting convictions at trial. That’s because like any prosecutor trying to hold cops accountable, Mosby will be working on an uneven playing field. To prove her case, she won’t just need sufficient evidence. She will also have to overcome a number of deep-seated structural impediments to convicting police officers of crimes—no matter how guilty they are. 


No matter how guilty they are.  Do you hear yourself?  No trial, and you have already proclaimed them GUILTY, because .. because you can.

Asshole.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

"Social Justice Org" accused of Exploitation ... of blacks hired to protest in Ferguson

Ferguson Rent-A-Mobs Exposed:

ACORN’s successor group in Missouri has been paying protesters $5,000 a month to generate civil unrest in Ferguson, the troubled St. Louis suburb where black youth Michael Brown was killed by a white police officer last August. We know this because some of the protesters haven’t been paid and, now, they are demanding what they were promised. They held a sit-in at the offices of Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE) and posted a demand letter online.

Apparently, the 'rioters' were motivated more by a promised paycheck than "justice".

But then MORE paid them LESS.  Or more exactly, they stiffed a bunch of protesters who had been hired to put the face of "race" into "Racial Injustice".

We're not all that surprised to learn that the protesters were hired to create an incident (riot?).  But that the liberal organization would then stiff their under-the-counter hired goons  agitators adds injury to insult.

Still, this is America,    If an Honest Politician is "one who stays bought", then an Honest Liberal is "one who pays his goons".

No Honest Liberals here.    (I guess it's really not that surprising, when you think about it.)

So now, the Protesters are Protesting THEM:
 From Gateway Pundit:  "We're Gonna Just F*CK YOU UP!"

Is this a great country, or what?