Archive for the ‘Non Compos Mentis’ Category

Some cheese to go with that whine?

October 7, 2010

Dezinformatsia

Leftists get it backwards, as usual

Loud mouths: “The conservative voices of America, they are holding you down. They don’t believe in your freedom. They want the concentration of wealth. They’ve shipped your job overseas. … They suppress your vote. … They talk about the Constitution, but they don’t want to live by it. They talk about our forefathers, but they want discrimination.” –radio talk-show host Ed Schultz at Saturday’s “One Nation” rally in DC

A smattering of leftists descended on the National Mall over the weekend to make sure everyone knows they hate the Tea Party. And while they were at it, they trashed the place. See for yourself.

Conservative cross-examination: “Good Morning America on Sunday recapped the liberal One Nation rally held on the nation’s capital, Saturday, but skipped any mention of the socialist and Communist themed signs seen during the march. These are some of the signs that were featured during reporter Tahman Bradley’s segment: ‘Peace, justice, equality, hope, change,’ ‘Fair trade, not free trade,’ ‘Educate every child,’ ‘Full and fair employment’ and ‘Silence GOP lies.’ However, signs with the Communist Party USA logo, posters reading ‘Capitalism is failing, socialism is the alternative’ and ‘Build a socialist alternative’ were not.” –Media Research Center’s Brent Baker

Psychology: “I think [the Tea Party is] more about believing in this preposterous fantasy that white people are some kind of oppressed minority in the age of Obama.” –MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell

“This morning, is the Tea Party losing traction? Our new poll says the answer may be yes…. [I]t seems like the more exposure the Tea Party is getting, the less popular it’s becoming.” –ABC’s George Stephanopoulos

“It sounds like we’re listening to the Cro-Magnon political party sometimes. They don’t believe in evolution, they believe guns should be used against congressmen and congresswomen if you don’t like the way they voted and we should reconsider the best thing Congress has done in 100 years — civil rights. So what do you make of your political party and the candidates that the Tea Partiers have shoved forward?” –MSNBC’s Chris Matthews

Useful Idiot: “I looked through [Obama’s] statement, and, you know, when he says things like ‘Jesus died for my sins. I’m saved by God’s salvation’ — that’s about as definitive as you can get. At this point, if jackasses out there question his faith, they’re just haters.” –MSNBC’s token “conservative,” Joe Scarborough

SOURCE

Would it be comical if your daughter or your son or your niece or nephew was lying in the street dead?

October 2, 2010

The travesty of the Obama Administration ahd the Federal Government in their persistent failure to enforce U.S. law on illegal aliens has resulted in more American deaths near the southern border.

This time, the Mexican drug cartels have illegally invaded certain areas of the American southwest (with absolutely no action by the federal government) set up shop to engage in drug running and weapons trafficking, the murder of U.S. citizens, and in some areas human smuggling.. .
According to the El Paso (Texas) Times:
“Authorities confirmed Wednesday that two Mexican drug cartels have made their way into southern Doña Ana County.
“An ongoing investigation into Mexican drug- and weapons-trafficking organizations has resulted in four seizures totaling more than $400,000, authorities said.
“The investigation is “absolutely … related to two drug cartels operating out of Juárez,” Doña Ana County sheriff’s investigator Bo Nevarez said.
“Most recently, $40,000 in U.S. currency was seized in an overnight operation targeting a Mexico-bound car the night of Sept. 23.”
In another major development, the increasing deadly violence against Americans on our own soil is of great concern to residents in our border states.  Michelle Malkin reports that as TV personality Stephen Colbert appeared before the Democrat-controlled Congress to make a mockery of the push to stop illegal immigration, the citizens who actually live in the area are dead-serious about the problem.  The reason?  Their lives are at stake.
Malkin posts a letter to Colbert written by the aunt of a young U.S. citizen who was gunned down by an illegal alien:
“Dear Stephen Colbert,
“In preparing this open letter to you, I am literally fighting back the tears! It truly breaks my heart that so many people in positions of power and authority continue to make light of illegal immigration!
“Are you aware of, and/or concerned with the fact, that American citizens and legal immigrants are murdered everyday by illegal aliens? Have you ever spent one second thinking about that?
“In speaking to Congress today, do you think you would have prepared anything different if one of your love ones was murdered by an illegal alien? You think you would make fun of this illegal alien invasion if you lost a loved one to this crime?
“What if your mother was shot in the head by an illegal alien? Do you think you could make that funny? What about your children? Would it be comical if your daughter or your son or your niece or nephew was lying in the street dead, shot in the head, by someone living in this country illegally?”  (Excerpt).
Add this to what we already know about the federal government essentially turning over U.S. land to illegal alien Mexicans near the southern border, the order from the White House for the military not to apprehend or detain illegals, and the continued deadly attacks on Americans, and it is clear that the U.S., under this Democrat/Marxist controlled regime, is turing the country into an unmitigated disaster.
Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.

It’s just too bad that Anthony and Fred can’t make up. They would be a team to be reckoned with…

Mayor Bloomberg blasts Tea Party, describes it as often irrational, ‘not a political movement’

October 2, 2010

Mayor Bloomberg blasts Tea Party, describes it as often irrational, ‘not a political movement’.

Mayor Bloomberg blasts Tea Party, describes it as often irrational, ‘not a political movement’

October 2, 2010

The straw purchase felon is back at it mischaracterizing people that he disagrees with. Nothing really new there, however, it is disturbing that the people of New York City actually put up with it.

As my good friend and fellow Blogger Texas Fred posted:

These are the Core Values of the TEA Party:

*Uphold the U.S. Constitution*
*Limited Government*
*Fiscal Responsibility*
*Free Markets*

Try as I might, I can’t find anything in the Core Values of the TEA Party that mentions abortion, guns or homosexuality. I have looked, diligently!

Read this great piece in it’s entirety HERE.

Epic fail obamacare: Sebelius Expounds on Her Recent Threat to Health Industry

October 2, 2010

Shortly after declaring that “there will be zero tolerance” for health insurers spreading “misinformation” about ObamaCare causing rate increases, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius wrote an op-ed claiming that health insurers “ran wild with no accountability” and previously had “free rein” for conducting business — all while under the regulation of 50 state insurance departments. In a bit of cosmic irony that managed to elude her keen wit, this alleged insurer rampage somehow didn’t occur on her watch as the Kansas Insurance Commissioner, a position that had the power to disapprove proposed health insurance rate increases since 1965.

Not satisfied with her Orwellian mischaracterization of the truth, Sebelius also misdiagnosed an insurer’s recent premium refund in North Carolina. She claimed that the refund was the result of regulatory powers under ObamaCare when, in reality, the insurer had determined that ObamaCare had so badly damaged the state’s individual health market that pulling out of that market was its only option. The refund was simply a return of the unused portions of subscribers’ premiums.

As the Democrats are about to discover, the health “reform” that they designed to transfer health insurance regulatory power from the states to the national government may be a Pyrrhic victory come Election Day. Instead of being a Democrat electoral lifeline, ObamaCare is actually the anchor around their necks.

SOURCE

Colorado tosses out it’s own Constitution!

September 30, 2010

Judge’s ruling against judicial reform group Clear The Bench Colorado undermines transparency, accountability in judicial retention vote

Judge’s ruling favors entrenched incumbents and big-money special interests

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.

Judge’s ruling against judicial reform group Clear The Bench Colorado undermines transparency, accountability in judicial retention vote

Judge’s ruling favors entrenched incumbents and big-money special interests

Late last Friday afternoon, Clear The Bench Colorado was stunned by the news that Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer (as an executive branch employee, answerable to the governor and not subject to a retention vote himself) set aside the documentary evidence, testimony by Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold along with the Elections Division director at the Colorado Secretary of State’s office AND the clear letter of the law to rule in favor of “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) in what the same judge had earlier characterized as a “frivolous, groundless, & vexatious” attack (er, “campaign finance complaint”).

Despite reliance on over a year’s worth of guidance issued by the office of Secretary of State (as confirmed in numerous documents and in witness testimony provided in hearings on 15 September) reached after “numerous” internal policy meetings and much research that Clear The Bench Colorado was, is, and ought to be properly characterized as an “Issue Committee” under campaign finance rules; CTBC’s scrupulous compliance with all rules, regulations, and reporting requirements for over a year; and dismissal of CEW’s earlier complaint as “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” – the judge changed course and found for CEW in their latest round of attacks, changing the rules in the final quarter of play.

Changing the rules at such a late date – mail ballots go out at the same time Clear The Bench Colorado has been directed to re-file as a political committee – and in direct contravention of the guidance upon which CTBC has relied for well over a year makes a mockery of the process of citizen civic engagement.  As noted by Clear The Bench Colorado lead attorney Scott Gessler,

“That’s just crazy, that ruling,” said Gessler. “What kind of crazy system is that, when you can’t trust what the Secretary of State tells you? [This ruling] means you have to hire a lawyer to do anything- to get involved at all in the political process.” (Colorado Independent, 9/25/2010)

From documentation provided by the office of Secretary of State:

Colorado campaign finance and Judicial retention

While judges are considered “candidates” for the purpose of campaign finance law in Art. XXVIII Sec. 2(2) of the Colorado Constitution, the question of the retention of a judge is a yes-or-no question.  Therefore, a committee organized for the purpose of advocating the retention or removal of a judge is advocating for a yes or no vote on that question, rather than advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate.  A committee organized for such a purpose is akin to a committee advocating for (or against) the recall of an elected official, which would register an issue committee under 1-45-108(6), C.R.S.  To that end, a committee established for the purpose of supporting or opposing the retention of a judge or judges is properly registered as an issue committee for campaign finance purposes.  Such an entity would not be considered a political committee, because political committees are established for the purpose of “support[ing] or oppos[ing] the nomination or election of one or more candidates” (Art. XXVII Sec. 2(12)(a)).  [emphasis added]

Adding insult to injury, the judge’s ruling is granting “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) more time to pay Clear The Bench Colorado what they’ve owed since July than time for Clear The Bench Colorado to re-file under “political committee” status or to appeal the ruling.

Naturally, Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) is trumpeting the ruling as a great victory, declaring in a press release Friday:

“The law does not permit a wealthy few to unduly influence the judicial retention process through large contributions against judges and justices whose rulings they don’t like.  Ethics Watch prevailed today in setting precedent to keep big money out of judicial elections…”

Ironically, the ruling “achieves” the exact opposite: big-money special interests will now be more prone to attempt to influence judicial retention elections behind the scenes, using vehicles other than the open and accountable “Issue Committee” organization types such as Clear The Bench Colorado.

In fact, big-money legal establishment special-interest groups are already active this year in promoting a “retain” vote for judicial incumbents (including, prominently, the three Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on the ballot this year).  They’re just significantly less honest about their intentions…

In a campaign that has been conspicuous for its LACK of big-money interests and “large contributions” (Toro is whining about two – TWO! – contributions exceeding $500), acting with complete transparency and absolute accountability to educate voters as to their right to hold judicial incumbents accountable for their performance in office, and to shed light on the records of judicial incumbents at the highest levels in order to provide substantive information on which voters can base an informed decision, CEW’s attacks (and the judge’s ruling in this case) do the Colorado electorate a great disservice.

CEW’s Toro is right about one thing: “Judges are… subject to corruption” via the influence of big-money special interests keeping them in office.

The expenditure of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) by legal establishment special-interest groups comprised of the very lawyers appearing before the judges they are supporting in office is much more likely to exert “undue influence” and raise the potential for “quid pro quo” corruption.

The Colorado Bar Association (COBAR) has already spent over $50,000 this last month (by their own admission) joining three other legal establishment special-interest groups (likely spending a similar amount, although the exact figures have not been made publicly available) in mounting an “education” campaign (electioneering without using the “magic words” of “vote yes” or “vote NO“) to prop up incumbent judges and justices.   In one month alone, they’ve spent more than CTBC has in a year.  Combined, these special interests are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in television, radio, and print ads providing “nonpartisan information about the performance of judges seeking retention” that, curiously, ALL supports a “retain” vote.

Another effort, sponsored by prominent Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin and other partisan attorneys (the “Colorado Judiciary Project”) is also spending large amounts (again, because this group formed as a “social welfare organization” their expenditures are NOT publicly available) supporting the judicial incumbents before whom they argue cases.  Conflict of interest?  Nah!

Ironically, these legal special-interest efforts come on top of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars used to produce and distribute the one-sided and shallow “evaluations” perpetrated by the (taxpayer-funded) commissions on judicial performance evaluation – which, again, advocate 100% of the time to “retain” Colorado Supreme Court justices in office.

NONE of these expenditures – hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the retention of judicial incumbents in office – are transparent and accountable to the public.

Did Friday’s ruling really succeed in “setting precedent to keep big money out of judicial elections…”?

Hardly.   It just provided cover for the big money that’s already comfortably ensconced in the process – erecting additional roadblocks to shedding light on the fact, and restoring accountability to the judiciary.

Clear The Bench Colorado has been consistently open, honest, and above-board in educating the public, and has scrupulously followed the rules under Colorado campaign finance laws for well over a year.  Forcing CTBC to re-file under a different set of rules – changed in the final quarter – makes a mockery of justice.

Yet another reason that now more than ever – it’s time to Clear The Bench, Colorado!

http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/

Outrage at Fort Hood!

September 30, 2010

Fort Hood soldiers told to list private weapons

Base requires make, model, serial number and who owns them


WND Exclusive


WEAPONS OF CHOICE

Fort Hood soldiers told to list private weapons

Base requires make, model, serial number and who owns them


Posted: September 30, 2010
12:55 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Greg Tropino Jr. displays a popular semiautomatic pistol manufactured by Springfield Armory at G. A. T. Guns in Dundee, Illinois on June 28, 2010. The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, striking down Chicago's nearly 30-year-old handgun ban but leaving the door open for other gun-control legislation.   UPI/Brian Kersey Photo via Newscom

The U.S. Army command at Fort Hood, where Muslim psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly shot and killed 13 people and an unborn child, now is demanding that its soldiers confess whether they have any guns in their off-base homes, what kind of guns they are and what are their serial numbers.

The action recalls similar disclosure demands on which WND has previously reported at Fort Bliss in Texas and Fort Campbell in Kentucky.

According to Christopher Haug Sr., the chief of media relations for Fort Hood, officials at the base issued an “operation order” that directed commanders “to reinforce Soldier Health and Wellness on Sept. 27.”

Full Story

Jerry Brown for Govenor of California: Can you say STUPID? I knew ya’ could!

September 28, 2010

California, my state of birth… (Oceanside, California, Camp Pendleton.) Somehow, survived the years that this God forsaken idiot was Governor there. Jerry Brown, caused, via his leftist policy’s and non-leadership; The worst times that the Golden State had ever been through. PERIOD!

He kissed ass to the Unions, to the illegal immigrants, raised taxes beyond belief, held gun owners in contempt, and pissed on the California Constitution as well as the Constitution of the United States of America so many times that I will not even bother with citation! He makes the epic failure obama look like a lightweight!

Now, to be honest? I don’t know an awful lot about Meg Whitman. But what I do know, is that Jerry Brown, is nothing at all like his Father.

Having lived under both, I know well what it is that I speak of.

More HERE.

Vote NO for Jerry Brown Jr!

Draft DOJ Report Faults BATFE, But Not Gun Control

September 25, 2010

A draft report prepared by the Justice Department Inspector General’s Evaluation and Inspections Division calls into question the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (BATFE) performance in carrying out the mandates of its Project Gunrunner program, established in 2007 to combat the trafficking of firearms to Mexico. The report also contradictorily suggests that BATFE’s ability to meet the program’s objectives might be enhanced by federal laws requiring the filing of multiple sales reports on long guns, and requiring some or all private sales of firearms to be screened by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

One contradiction is that the report complains that BATFE’s “focus remains largely on inspections of gun dealers and investigations of straw purchasers, rather than on higher-level traffickers, smugglers, and the ultimate recipients of the trafficked guns.” But requiring multiple sales reports on long guns and requiring private sales to go through NICS would mainly facilitate even more investigations of straw purchasers. And there’s another contradiction. If, as some claim, straw purchasers are the primary source of firearms bought in the U.S. for resale to the cartels, and that straw purchasers can defeat NICS checks, the smuggling of firearms from the U.S. to Mexico can’t be significantly reduced by requiring that private sales be subject to NICS. After all, a straw purchaser who can pass a NICS check can pass it regardless of whether the gun is being bought from a dealer or someone who is not a dealer.

Also, BATFE doesn’t follow up on most of the multiple sales reports it receives on handguns, so there’s little reason to think it would do things any differently with reports on long guns. Theoretically, more multiple sales reports and NICS checks would make it easier for BATFE to conduct commercial record traces on firearms, but as the report points out, “most trace requests that are submitted to ATF from Mexico are considered ‘unsuccessful.'” Only 27 percent of traces between 2007 and 2009, on firearms seized in Mexico, were successful.

BATFE traces are of such dubious value that, the report notes, “Mexican law enforcement authorities do not view gun tracing as an important investigative tool. . . . One Mexican official stated that U.S. officials talk of eTrace as if it is a ‘panacea’ but that it does nothing for Mexican law enforcement. An official in the Mexico Attorney General’s office told us he felt eTrace is ‘some kind of bad joke.'”

To its credit, the draft report correctly points out that Mexico requests BATFE to trace only about one quarter of the firearms that it seizes from the cartels, a fact which implies that a significant share of the cartels’ guns come from countries other than the United States. To put it simply, if the Mexican police recover a machine gun with Communist Chinese markings on it, they know it didn’t come from the U.S., and they are not going to waste time requesting a trace from BATFE. The Mexicans are interested in squashing the cartels, not in racking up trace numbers to spruce up BATFE press releases.

SOURCE

“Nice Try, But No Cigar” For Brady Campaign’s Paul Helmke

September 25, 2010

“The NRA is wrong again,” said Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke on Tuesday, in his 176th (and counting) blog post on the left-wing Huffington Post website. Helmke was upset because of three things we pointed out in our annual “More Guns, Less Crime” fact sheet and Grassroots Alert last week.

First, the number of guns has risen to an all-time high. Second, for decades Brady Campaign has repeatedly predicted with unfettered confidence that more guns would necessarily cause crime to rise. But third, the nation’s violent crime and murder rates have instead fallen to 35- and 45-year lows, respectively.

Our fact sheet and alert didn’t say that crime has gone down because the number of guns has risen. And we didn’t even mention that crime has gone down in large part because in the 1990s many states adopted laws that NRA called for, to require violent criminals to spend time behind bars, to increase the length of violent criminals’ prison sentences, and to reduce their ability to obtain parole and probation (we’ll do that in next year’s fact sheet.  Thanks for the reminder, Paul).

All our fact sheet and alert pointed out was that, contrary to Brady Campaign predictions, an increase in guns didn’t cause crime to go up.

Nevertheless, Helmke whined, “The NRA is misleading again.”  The NRA is trying “to wave and shout and dance and steal the credit” for crime going down. NRA’s leaders “treat us as fools.”

Helmke didn’t deny that there is less crime. And he didn’t deny that there are more guns. Instead, he paraphrased some of Violence Policy Center’s hogwash, saying, “the average number of guns per owner has gone up, but the percent of American households with a gun? That’s right: it’s gone down.”

What Helmke didn’t mention is that polls measuring the percentage of households that acknowledge having at least one gun don’t accurately measure gun ownership by household or the number of Americans who own guns.

In its 1996 National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms in the United States (NSPOF), the Police Foundation identified one of the limits of surveys attempting to measure gun ownership by household.

“For households headed by a married couple, 49 percent of the husbands report a gun in the home, compared with just 36 percent of the wives. Since this difference is far larger than can be explained by chance, it appears that many wives either do not know about their husband’s guns or are reluctant to discuss it with a stranger. The NSPOF estimates based on a respondent’s report of all guns in the household is 107.2 million working firearms. The NSPOF estimate based on a respondent’s report of his or her own firearms is 192.1 million working firearms.”

Similarly, criminologist Gary Kleck has noted that in his and Marc Gertz’s landmark survey of defensive firearm use, “50.1% of married men reported a household gun, but only 37.4% of married women did. . . . Fourteen consecutive General Social Surveys found married women to report household guns at lower levels than married men.”

Kleck added that a person is more likely to acknowledge that he or she own guns, than to acknowledge the ownership of guns by someone else in the household, but that while “it is most commonly a male who owns the household guns . . . . [M]arried women make up around 31% of the usual adult survey samples.”

Helmke also didn’t note (but Kleck did) that the percentage of people telling pollsters that they have guns in their homes dropped precipitously during the years of the Clinton Administration’s war against gun owners, from the 40+ percentage range, down into the 30s.

And there is one other, factor that Helmke didn’t take into account: The population of the country rises by about one percent, or three million, every year. Surveys began showing a decline in “household” gun ownership in the 1980s, but since 1985, for example, the population of the country has increased 30 percent, from 239 million to 310 million. That’s more than enough to compensate for the decline in “yes” responses to pollsters asking whether people have any guns in their homes.

So, we’d say we hate to be the one to tell you, Paul, but that wouldn’t be honest. We’re glad to tell you. There are more Americans owning more guns than ever before and, as we both agree, violent crime is way, way, down.

SOURCE