The New Year is upon us, and I always come back to this classic from Dan Fogelberg. I don't know if there is an "official" video, but this is a good one.
A chance encounter of a former love, and catching up over the hours. Something is still there, but you have gone on in life, and it is behind you. Life everything in the past.
Something to remember as you face the New Year's Eve, and the party, champaign, resolutions. Life goes on.
I've been a cop for almost a quarter century, and I've never had an issue with someone using their camera phone on me, as long as it's from a safe distance. I was once conducting a DWI investigation and a friend of the driver got up close and said, "I'm recording this..." I instructed her to get on the sidewalk and record all she wants. She refused at first and after explaining she had ten seconds to move her ass until I arrested her for Walking in street where sidewalk provided (Yes, that is a city ordinance), she finally backed down.
Now I must say this is an interesting angle to this concept. You're not recording a police encounter, you are live broadcasting it. And that may invite others to try to interfere.
Argument pits First Amendment rights against Fourth Amendment reasonableness
The traffic stopConsider the real dangers of live streaming to officer safety. Be able to articulate them.
Appellate oral arguments are normally governed by protocol and decorum. A dustup last month in the Fourth Circuit was a notable exception. Before checking out what the brouhaha was about, let’s look at the facts that led to it.
Dijon Sharpe was a passenger in a car properly stopped for a traffic violation by Winterville (North Carolina) Police Department Officers Helms and Ellis. Sharpe began live-streaming the encounter with Facebook Live to his Facebook account. Helms asked Sharpe if he was doing Facebook Live and Sharpe said he was. Helms reached inside the car for Sharpe’s phone, pulling on his seat belt and shirt. Helms explained Sharpe couldn’t do Facebook Live “because that’s an officer safety issue.”
However, Helms didn’t take Sharpe’s phone. Sharpe continued to live stream and message with people watching. Later, Ellis told Sharpe he was free to record the police, adding that the police recorded also, but he wouldn’t be allowed to live stream because that let everyone who followed him online know where the encounter was occurring and there might be just one officer on scene. Ellis said if Sharpe tried to Facebook Live in the future, his phone would be taken, and he would be arrested.
Sharpe filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit alleging his First Amendment rights were violated...
In two differentorders, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the officers, department and town based on the pleadings. The court concluded no circuit had previously found a passenger had a right to live stream a traffic stop. Additionally, the Fourth Circuit had not even decided a passenger had a right to record, let alone live stream a stop.
Sharpe appealed to a 3-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit. In briefing and oral argument, his attorney said other circuits’ decisions that found a right to record traffic stops supported finding a right to live stream them. He contended a generalized statement regarding officer safety did not override Sharpe’s First Amendment right. Live streaming served a strong public and governmental interest in deterring police misconduct. It would also keep officers safer by deterring conduct against them which would be captured on video.
Sharpe’s First Amendment crusade drew significant attention from civil liberties and press advocates. Seven amicus briefs were filed in support of his claims.
Counsel for the officers, the department and the town, in briefing and at oral argument, pointed out the lack of any case that held there was a right to live stream traffic stops. Even within the circuits that found a right to record police, none addressed the right of a passenger in a traffic stop to record.
Counsel also argued that live streaming presented additional risks to officers by alerting untold viewers in present time to the location of the stop thereby creating the potential for a crowd control operation. The Supreme Court had long recognized the inherent dangers of traffic stops for officers and had upheld reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on driver and passenger conduct for purposes of officer safety.
With the advent of flash mobs, etc, by way of instant video communications, this is an issue I'd never thought of. But it makes sense, I've had incidents on the street where things got tense quickly and people who have no dealing with the people being handled by the cops show up. All of a sudden two cops and four people in a car become two cops, four people in a car, and 20-30 people on the sidewalk.
But it was Judge Paul Neimeyer that began a crusade to elevate officer safety to a Fourth Amendment right of police. Less than a minute into Sharpe’s argument, he began interrupting and asking, “What rights does an officer have to maintain control of the circumstances during a traffic stop?”
To answer the question, the officer has no right to maintain control. He has the legal authority granted to him by the state to control a crime scene. Call me a bit particular about that point, but rights do not come because of a badge, but you are "endowed by your Creator," with them.
That being said, the officer had the authority and duty to maintain control of a potentially hostile scene, with any legal means. If there is an issue with the auto driver/passengers, get back up. If people living in the area show up and may cause a problem, get more back up. If the natives are getting restless, call for backup. Twenty civilians see ten cops back up the original two, they will likely get calmer. Showing the flag if you will.
I have no doubt this will be heading to the Supreme Court in the future. Something like this can easily be split decisions by two district courts (i.e., the 9th Circus in California and the 5th Circuit in Louisiana). Once that happens, SCOTUS almost immediately takes the case to settle the matter. I'll keep an eye on this in the future.
While I'm generally in favor of our support of the Ukrainians, there is an issue. There are only so many weapons in our arsenal.
We're pushing thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles out that we are depleting our stockpile. And these are items you don't just pick up at the hardware store. They have to be ordered, the assembly line must be re-established, etc. More from this article
Simi Valley, Calif. —Raytheon Technologies CEO Greg Hayes today described the extensive depletion of U.S. stockpiles — equivalent to years’ worth of production — of Javelin anti-tank and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles amid Washington’s program to support the Ukrainian war effort...
...Hayes spoke about U.S. defense industrial production during a panel on Ukraine at the Reagan National Defense Forum, a high-profile defense-industry confab that attracts a bipartisan congressional delegation, defense contractors, and top Pentagon officials every year.
Although Raytheon is producing 400 Javelins per month with Lockheed Martin as a manufacturing partner, he said, the ongoing fighting in Ukraine has burned through existing weapons stocks.
“The problem is we have consumed so much supply in the first ten months of the war,” he said. “We’ve essentially used up 13 years’ worth of Stinger production and five years’ worth of Javelin production.”
“So the question is, how are we going to resupply, restock inventories,” Hayes added. Raytheon produced Stingers starting in 1977, but the Pentagon had not bought a new Stinger system since 2004, Hayes said in April.
As of May, Washington had sent 5,500 Javelins and 1,400 Stingers to Ukraine. Raytheon won a $624 million contract with the Army that month to backfill U.S. Stinger stocks...
When I served in 1st Battalion 3rd Air Defense Artillery Regiment at Ft Carson CO, we had a dome simulator for our Stinger gunner to practice with. Every year we got less than 10 Vietnam era Redeye missiles (the predatory to the Stinger) to live fire. Granted, this was enough training for most gunners (like simulator time for an airline pilot).
But this shows how easily you can go though your basic load of munitions quickly. And unlike fuel, oil, or small arms ammunition, missiles like this cannot be purchased off the shelf. We need a larger supply to draw upon with the rise of Russia, China and Iran. Not just for us, but our allies. Example one, Ukraine. Example two, Taiwan.
So, the FBI sent in, ready,15 agents to investigate the latest uprising of the KKK.Fifteen agents. Good lord, they didn’t put that manpower to look into the Hunter Biden laptop showing ourcurrent POTUS was taking bribes. All that money, manpower, and excitement to learn it was not the only one tied like that, and it had been so for months before anyone knew Wallace would use that garage. In other words, it was much ado about nothing.
Not to be outdone, we now have federal authorities investigating a school library in Texas for LGBTQABCDEFG books.
The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has opened what appears to be the first-of-its-kind investigation into the Granbury Independent School District after it banned school library books dealing with sexuality and gender.
First question, why does the US Department of Education have an Office for Civil Rights? I looked this up:
The mission of the Office for Civil Rights is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of civil rights…
The Office for Civil Rights enforces several Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. Discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin is prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; sex discrimination is prohibited by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; discrimination on the basis of disability is prohibited by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and age discrimination is prohibited by the Age Discrimination Act of 1975...
Forgive me, but doesn’t the US government have a Department of Justice already? Isn’t its job to enforce the federal laws of this nation? Doesn’t this include the civil rights laws of the federal government? Not sure which is a bigger waste, this or the Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General?
The U.S. Education Department’s civil rights enforcement arm has launched an investigation into a North Texas school district whose superintendent was secretly recorded ordering librarians to remove LGBTQ-themed library books.
Education and legal experts say the federal probe of the Granbury Independent School District — which stemmed from a complaint by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and reporting by NBC News, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune — appears to be the first such investigation explicitly tied to the nationwide movement to ban school library books dealing with sexuality and gender…
“…I acknowledge that there are men that think they’re women and there are women that think they’re men,” Glenn told librarians in January, according to a leaked recording of the meeting obtained, verified and published exclusively by the news outlets. “I don’t have any issues with what people want to believe, but there’s no place for it in our libraries.”
And they don’t. At least not in elementary school libraries. I can see this being appropriate for high school libraries, and maybe junior high, but not for elementary schools. Now the article is does not make clear if this was all school libraries, or just a particular grade level.
But more to the point, this is not a federal issue. The libraries are paid for by the taxpayers (particularly the property owners through their taxes), and if they want to have a say in how their schools are operated, that is their business.
More to the point, nothing is being banned. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of banned:
: to prohibit especially by legal means
ban discrimination
Is smoking banned in all public buildings?
also: to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of
ban a book
ban a pesticide
“By legal means?" This was administrative, not legal, so no. Is the “use, performance, or distribution” of these books prohibited? Not at all. You can go to your local bookstore and buy them, or you can get on Amazon.com and order them. If little Jane or Johnny want to read them at school on their lunch break, no one is stopping the kid. But a library, public or private, is not required to provide them. Any library has limits to what it can purchase
Last week I published on the American Free News Network an article on the Congress passing a ridiculous bill funding “de-escalation” training for local law enforcement. It gave an average of $4,000 a year per agency for training most agencies are doing to one degree or another. A point is federal money always comes with strings attached. The bigger point is Democrats want to federalize local law enforcement.
Now we see another example of the federal government trying to stick it’s nose into a local issue. If the parents and taxpayers of the Granbury Independent School District want to control what books are available to their children at their schools, that is, get this, their business. Not the business of a bureaucrat in a completely worthless agency in the District of Columbia. Hopefully this school board tells the feds and ACLU (six of one, half dozen of the other) where they can stick this complaint. Maybe Mitch McConnell can look at deleting this Civil Rights division of the Department of Education as a “priority” of the Republicans in the senate.
If can see Mannheim Steamroller, do so. Their music is hauntingly beautiful My wife and I saw them a few years back and the show rivals groups like ELO and Paul McCarthy.
The perfect song for Christmas Eve, a Holy Night indeed.
On my Bucket List is visiting his grave. I saw Ike's in 86, Bradley's in 19. But I will see General George Smith Patton's grave after I retire.
Found this video by pure accident. I've read about the end in the classic Patton: Ordeal and Triumph, one of the two books the movie Patton was based on (the other is Omar Bradley's A Soldier's Story).
I remember one of the scenes of the movie, where he almost gets killed by an ox cart. His actual cause of death was almost as unbelievable, especially for a man well described as, "A pure warrior...what a magnificent anachronism."
Non cops just don't understand the relationship between a K9 and the two legged cops they serve with. Often the four legged cops are braver than the two legged version, and smarter. So it tears us up when one does down in the line. It's especially hard on the handler's family as they are often housed with the handler. The dog is part of the family.
A few years back the state upgraded the penalty for killing a police K9 to a 2nd Degree Felony. And a POS in San Antonio has been found guilty of killing one of our K9 cops. Good riddance.
SAN ANTONIO – After six days of trial, a jury on Thursday found the man accused of killing a Bexar County Sheriff’s Office K-9 guilty.
Matthew Mireles was facing one count of interfering with a police service animal, one count of evading arrest, and eight counts of aggravated assault of a public servant...
...The charges stem from a chase in January 2019 that started in Karnes County. Police tried to pull him over on a routine traffic stop, but Mireles led officers on a pursuit throughout Karnes County for about 30 minutes before moving into Bexar County.
Mireles fired several shots at the officers who were chasing him.
The chase ended in the area of Loop 1604 and Highway 151, where Mireles got out of his truck, leaving it in reverse.
Deputies would eventually deploy K-9 Chucky, a 5-year-old Belgian Malinois, to try to subdue him. Chucky was able to bite Mireles before Mireles fired several shots at the dog, killing him.
A judge is expected to sentence him in February. Because Mireles had previously been convicted, his sentence could be enhanced and he faces anywhere between 25 years to life in prison.
Gotta love the name of the K9, Chucky. Brings back memories of 1980s movie nights. Hopefully the turd never sees the outside of a prison cell.
RIP Chucky. Till our next Roll Call at the Rainbow Bridge.
I've been carrying a weapon almost constantly for a quarter century. Part of the job, and with the surge in crime recently, I'd rather have and not need, then need and not have. My normal off duty is an Sig P365, in a hip holster with one extra magazine slot. For other occasions I have a shoulder holster with two 15 round magazines. Better have more ammo than not enough.
I found this article recently and it brings out a good point on carrying extra magazines. The reason is not running out of ammo. It's in case you have a jam.
When choosing to carry a concealed firearm, gun owners are often faced with a number of decisions…How best to carry? What type of holster makes the most sense for everyday carry (EDC)? One question that is frequently asked at gun stores and during firearms training classes is “Why should I carry more than one magazine?” The answer isn’t as simple as it may seem.
Contrary to what we see in movies or on television, the need for more than one magazine is rarely due to simply running out of ammunition. In fact, according to FBI statistics, on average, in most defensive situations, gun owners only discharge three rounds over three seconds from a distance of three yards. This is known as the “rule of threes.”
The real reason it’s important to carry an extra magazine is because of potential gun stoppages related to a magazine malfunction. No matter what gun you own, pistol magazines have a lifespan and wear out over time. Feed lips and followers can become worn, springs lose their strength, and the magazine itself can get dented or dinged from training. Part of the responsibility of gun ownership involves the regular inspection of your firearm before use. However, unlike a car for example, there’s no check engine light on a magazine to let you know it’s time for maintenance. It will simply stop functioning and in a defensive scenario, there’s no sound worse than the click of the trigger with no bang. Simple checks on your magazine like pushing the follower up and down to ensure it functions, or even checking to see that it’s clear of dirt or carbon build up, will go a long way towards ensuring your pistol functions properly every time.
The primary magazine is the one loaded in your pistol. Primary magazines are typically smaller in size to make concealment easier and to prevent printing. What’s printing? That’s when the outline of your gun visibly displays on your clothing when concealed. A backup magazine can usually be concealed in locations that will not print. Popular EDC gear choices include a belt-mounted magazine pouch or a pocket magazine carrier. It is important to ensure that your backup magazine is secure and located in the same place each time you carry concealed. This will also allow you to carry a magazine with a higher capacity because of the vertical position of the backup magazine, making it easier to conceal and access in a reload situation.
Gun stoppages aren’t necessarily caused by magazines, either. If your pistol isn’t regularly cleaned or maintained, you could have issues such as double feeds or stove pipes. Regularly lubricating your gun and replacing the recoil spring every 3,000 rounds are two key preventative measures that responsible gun owners employ to maintain their firearms...
I will say you can never maintain your weapons too much, but the point about the springs is notable. Never considered the recoil spring, but it makes sense. I did get off my ass a few years back and replace the springs in all of my duty magazines (ten in all) for my duty Sig 229 40 caliber. Great article and excellent points on how to safety carry, and be ready when needed.
Back in the bad days of Davis Dennis as mayor, New York had over 2000 murders in a year. That's over six a day. Fortunately, the people in the city had enough, elected a strong mayer who hired a cop as his police commissioner, and the took the shackles off the police. One of the procedures was having the cops assertively challenge suspects on the street.
They see a know felon on the street, stop him to talk, conduct a Terry Patdown and feel the outline of a gun. Detain the suspect, retrieve the weapon, the felon gets busted for possession of a firearm and sent back to prison. The fact he was about to rob or kill someone is the great news, and violent crimes collapsed over the Giuliani term.
I am no fan of Mike Bloomberg, but I'll give him this, he kept Giuliani's police procedure in place. Well, last year New York elected a former NYPD captain as their new mayor. And the rest is not good.
NYPD ends prolonged street stops to check for warrants after lawsuit
Fox News’ Laura Ingle reports on the crime crisis as the NYPD reports a growing number of adolescents involved in violent crime.
The New York City Police Department ended a policy of prolonged street stops to check for arrest warrants and ties to other cases as part of a lawsuit settlement...
...The NYPD settled a lawsuit Friday with stipulations that police officers only check for arrest warrants if they have "reasonable suspicion" and that the suspect "was committing, committed or is about to commit" a crime or if there's probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.
The class-action suit, filed in 2019, challenged the stops as unconstitutional, citing the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on illegal detention and unlawful search and seizure.
The Legal Aid Society, a public defender organization, filed the lawsuit with two outside law firms.
And women, children and minorities will be hardest hit. But I find this interesting. As in typical.
Under the agreement, the NYPD must train all officers in the new policy by Jan. 31. It will also pay $453,733 in damages and attorneys’ fees for five named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs will each receive between $3,000 and $19,000.
So the two "harmed" individuals will receive a total of 10% of the money from the settlement, and the lawyers will make out like bandits. Reminds me of a classic line from Archie Bunker. After someone stole his wallet and he's explaining the facts of the incident to his family, there is a knock at the door. He answers it, and a gentlemen is outside:
"Mr. Bunker, I'm an attorney..."
"Oh, I don't need a lawyer. I've already been robbed."
New York, hate to say it, you're gonna have to hit rock bottom again before you elect competent people to run the city again. Until then, God help you.
Again, we need to teach the cops to de-escalate. Not the civilians.
While on patrol Thursday I found this interesting article on what our great leaders (excuse me, just spit out some coffee) are accomplishing in the USofA. Passing a budget, which they haven't since FY 2010. No. Bringing spending under control? Nope. Trying to control the border? Funny. No, they will lecture cops on the street on how to do their jobs with "de-escalation training."
We've been doing this, informally and formally, for decades. And the ignorance of the people here is astonishing, even for members of congress. And the "journalist" writing this is not showing himself a genius <sarcasm>, IMHO.
The bill will help PDs adopt de-escalation training when encountering individuals with mental health issues in an effort to reduce officer-involved fatalities
By Farnoush Amiri
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — In one of its final acts of the year, the House passed bipartisan legislation late Wednesday that would empower law enforcement agencies across the country to adopt de-escalation training when encountering individuals with mental health issues as part of an effort to reduce the number of officer-involved fatalities.
Mr. Amiri, police agencies were "empowered to adopt de-escalation training" since they were established. The local sheriffs, police departments, state police, etc are already established and have set training requirements. This is simply eyewash for members of the congress to say, "Hey, I voted for something..."
The bill passed 264-162 with Republican support and capped off a modest two-year effort by Congress to pass police reform legislation. The proposal — first introduced by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island — will now go to President Joe Biden’s desk for his signature.
“By giving law enforcement the tools they need to help those experiencing mental health emergencies and other crises, we can help make communities safer by building a stronger bridge between the criminal justice system and mental health care,” Cornyn said in a statement late Wednesday.
I will give Biden this, he does know about mental illness. But what tools are the congress giving local cops? Let's see.
The bill that passed the House on Wednesday will amend a 1968 federal crime law to authorize $70 million in annual grant funding for law enforcement training on alternatives to the use of force that include scenario-based exercises for officers. It will also require the Justice Department to develop a series of curriculum and training topics in partnership with stakeholders like law enforcement and civil liberties groups and mental health professionals.
“Whether it be Rodney King, or whether it be George Floyd or any of the number of incidents we’ve seen over the last 30 years: How police deal with force is at the heart of the discussion about policing,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington-based think tank. “And what we have come to find out over the last five to eight years is that the training is outdated. It doesn’t live up to current-day practices.”
They are putting out $70 million a year in grants. There are 50 states, over 18,000 police agencies, divide the money by the number of agencies, that's less than $4,000 a year per agency. Not a really good statistical analysis, but good enough. Especially when you see that local/state governments spend over 200 billion a year on law enforcement.
The point about the federal Just-Us department putting out "curriculum and training topics in partnership with stakeholders like law enforcement and civil liberties groups and mental health professionals" is very troublesome. The fact is Democrats want to federalize local/state law enforcement, and they will do it any way they can. And by federalize, I mean destroy.
As far as Mr. Wexler's comment's, he's dead wrong. Rodney King wasn't just walking in the street and four cops decided to beat him for no reason. He had committed multiple crimes and was evading in a vehicle:
At 12:45 a.m. on March 3, 1991, robbery parolee Rodney G. King stops his car after leading police on a nearly 8-mile pursuit through the streets of Los Angeles, California. The chase began after King, who was intoxicated, was caught speeding on a freeway by a California Highway Patrol cruiser but refused to pull over. Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) cruisers and a police helicopter joined the pursuit, and when King was finally stopped by Hansen Dam Park, several police cars descended on his white Hyundai.
A group of LAPD officers led by Sergeant Stacey Koon ordered King and the other two occupants of the car to exit the vehicle and lie flat on the ground. King’s two friends complied, but King himself was slower to respond, getting on his hands and knees rather than lying flat. Officers Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind, Ted Briseno, and Roland Solano tried to force King down, but he resisted, and the officers stepped back and shot King twice with an electric stun gun known as a Taser, which fires darts carrying a charge of 50,000 volts.
But coming back to the "de-escalate" canard, the author here, and the man quoted, miss the critical fact. If the suspect is not willing to de-escalate, no amount of talking by the cop or training by a federal contractor will change this. If Mr. King had not driven drunk over miles, endangering the public, he would never have been known. And if he had complied with the orders of the cops, again, this would have never blown up.
Mr. Floyd suffered, and likely died, from a fentanyl overdose. Did the cop screw up, yes, in my opinion. The cardiac compression was a technique he was trained on and authorized by the department. But once he looses consciousness and the heart stops, everything changes. At that moment you need to tell dispatch to get the ambulance there faster, start chest compressions and render other first aid.
But another paragraph brings this entire endeavor into question:
The issue is a perennial one for the nation. While nearly one in five U.S. adults has a mental illness, people who are untreated are 16 times more likely to be killed during a police encounter than other people approached by law enforcement, the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit dedicated to getting treatment for the mentally ill, concluded in a 2015 report.
Let's just pass on the ridiculous stat of 20% of Americans have mental illness, and go again to this article. The congress funded de-escalation training, i.e. cops, the is is how to handle people on the street who are angry, etc. Mentally ill people are different animals, and they likely will not respond to "de-escalation" training, but Crisis Intervention Training, or CIT (a concept originated at local police agencies, not the feds, thank you very much). So why do we have to discuss mental issues in this article?
Again, more eyewash and wasted money for people. The problem is once this crap is put in, cutting it out of the budget is practically impossible. And the funding will come with strings attached.
Friday, December 16, 2022
Almost Christmas. In honor of the Savior's Birthday, Silent Night by Manheim Steamroller.
Corrections Officer Onochie Ikedionwu died from complications as the result of contracting COVID-19 in the line of duty at Dodge State Prison in Chester, Georgia.
Officer Ikedionwu is survived by his wife, two daughters, and siblings.
Last February I heard Women’s NBA player Britney Griner was arrested in Moscow for carrying hashish oil in her luggage, and like million my reaction was, “Who?” Apparently she is a well know WNBA player and was playing off season in Russia to make some extra cash. Can’t knock her for wanting to make some side money, I do it myself.
By 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration devised a plan to lure Bout out of Russia with an arms deal that would be hard to refuse. The agency hired an undercover agent to contact a trusted associate of Bout's about a big business deal. That exchange led to the first meeting between the DEA's fake arms buyers, who were posing as officials of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, also known as the FARC, and Bout's associate on the island of Curacao, a few hundred miles off the coast of Colombia…
…Weeks later, Bout was on his way to Thailand, thinking he would be meeting with FARC officials to discuss shipping what prosecutors said was "an arsenal of military grade weapons" to attack American helicopters in Colombia.
During a March 2008 meeting in a Bangkok hotel conference room, Bout told the DEA informants posing as FARC officials that he could airdrop the arms in Colombia and acknowledged that the weapons could be used to kill Americans…
OK, after he was sentenced to 25 years (Scheduled to be released in 2029), Russia wanted him back. And whom did he get back in return.
Let's just say Ms. Griner is not Miss America. Not sure if she knelt during the National Anthem or just waited in the locker room until after honors to America were completed, but she did say it should not be played during WNBA games.
For the moment, lets assume the worse about Ms. Griner, is this the worse possible outcome? Not really.
I remember a very heated Facebook dispute with a high school friend, who claimed the trade for Bergdahl was something “Americans do,” and we don’t leave soldiers on the battlefield. I pointed out to the Obama worshiper (likely has a 10ft by 15ft picture of The One on his wall to worship 5 times daily…slight exaggeration) that Bergdahl was a deserter in a time of war, men died trying to get his ass back, and if anything he should be facing a court martial and execution upon return. Also, prisoner exchanges are one for one, and generally at the same Geneva Convention Level, i.e., Bergdahl would be traded for one Taliban fighter, not five Taliban “generals.”
I explained to my friend, “In the chess game that is war, your idol gave the enemy back their queen, both knights, both rooks, and in return we didn’t get back a checker.”
Mr. Biden, in case you missed it, you have lost your best leverage with Putin. Good luck in future negotiations with him. Damn I would love to play poker with you Joe, but it be unsporting to wipe the floor with a mental defective.
So, in summary, a bad deal, but it could have been much worse.
I get annoyed when I see Christmas stuff in store as early as August. Hey guys, the kids ain't back in school yet!
Well, Thanksgiving is past and it is now the official Christmas season. The next few Fridays it will be Christmas music. If you have never seen Mannheim Steamroller live, do yourself a favor and watch them. The show is fantastic.
Carol of the Bells live. Enjoy and have a great weekend.
Let’s say you’re a moron. Or let’s say you’re a former Clinton cabinet member and current Berkley professor. But I repeat myself.
After the shooting at Club Q in Colorado Springs, Robert V Reich immediately put this up on his Twitter feed:
Researchers have estimated that if we still had a federal assault weapons ban, we would see 70% fewer mass shooting deaths. S-E-V-E-N-T-Y PERCENT. Reinstating it should be a no-brainer.
Now one thing I am very meticulous about in my writings is sources. If you’ve read my stuff, I have links to studies, online publications, etc., where you can judge for yourself my assertions. Granted, Twitter is not a full blown, “sourced,” or “peer reviewed” information source. Fair enough.
But one thing I do have issue with is Mr. Reich seems to expect people to read his stuff and swallow it whole. His intellectual arrogance is what makes people despise higher education faculty.
A simple search will find facts of mass shootings. Mass shootings are defined as those where 4 or more people are shot and killed in one incident. From the National Institute of Justice:
Notably, most individuals who engaged in mass shootings used handguns (77.2%), and 25.1% used assault rifles in the commission of their crimes. Of the known mass shooting cases (32.5% of cases could not be confirmed), 77% of those who engaged in mass shootings purchased at least some of their guns legally, while illegal purchases were made by 13% of those committing mass shootings. In cases involving K-12 school shootings, over 80% of individuals who engaged in shootings stole guns from family members.
Granted, they, like Bobby Reich here, don’t define what an assault weapon is. Again, I started with a Web search and I found a two-decade old reference from the OJP:
The paper defines an "assault weapon" as a "civilian, semiautomatic version of a military weapon." Generally, the characteristics of an assault weapon make firearms more lethal, more accurate, and/or less conspicuous when used.
assault rifle, militaryfirearmthat is chambered forammunitionof reduced size or propellant charge and that has thecapacityto switch between semiautomatic and fullyautomaticfire. Because they are light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 feet (300–500 metres), assault rifles have replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic rifles of theWorld War IIera as the standard infantryweaponof modern armies…
I’ve said countless times over the years, I’ve carried both a Ruger Mini-14 and a Safariland AR-15 as patrol rifles. Both fire .223 ammunition and both have “high capacity” magazines (I carry 30 round magazines). Furthermore both are semi-automatic, i.e., you must pull the trigger every time you want to fire one round, as opposed to automatic, where once your squeeze and hold the trigger, the rifle will fire rounds until you release the trigger, run out of bullets, or the rifle jams.
So, compare these two rifles to a M-16. All three fire .223, all three have “high capacity magazines,” but only the M-16 A1 has full auto (M-16 A2 has burst fire of 3 rounds). Otherwise the AR-15 and the M-16 similarities are cosmetic, not functional. The Mini-14 looks nothing like the AR-15 or M-16, although it functions like the AR-15
Another lie put out by many politicians and other ignorant sources is the AR-15 is a “weapon of war” or a “military weapon” in civilian hands. I then ask people this one question: Which army in the world uses the AR-15? I get no answer, and in internet searches, I get no answer. I have no doubt some Guerra groups use them, but no nation’s armed forces that I can find uses it.
The facts are Mr. Reich put out a unsubstantiated statement. I’ll be generous and give him the benefit of the doubt he’s just ignorant of the truth. As a Berkley professor, that is very believable. But either way, it’s false, and it shows he’s not to be taken seriously.
I didn't see the first two hours of MTV, but I did see the video that started it, Video Killed the Radio Star by The Buggles. Followed quickly by one of my favorite rockers, Pat Benatar with You Better Run. I read in her book Between a Rock and Heart Place they filmed the video in a warehouse on the New York docks. She said how everything was going wrong (technical problems, it was hot and humid, etc.) and that was part of the reason she had a stern look on her face. And they had no idea what a "music video" was. Thankfully she learned.
Unfortunately an unknown idiot changed an awesome channel into another reality TV hellhole. But for years, it was an incredible distraction. So for a long week, here is the first two hours of MTV back when it was great. Enjoy, have a great weekend, and Happy Thanksgiving.
I've travelled on airlines countless times with my firearm. By that I mean it's in my checked luggage. Simple to do, have it unloaded in a locked case, declare it when you check your baggage, and the TSA agent has to verify it's unloaded.
Well, never thought of this technique to carry my weapon.
A TSA agent finds a gun wrapped in a package inside a raw chicken. (Photo courtesy of the Transportation Security Administration)
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - A person going through a airport checkpoint got caught trying to smuggle a gun inside a raw chicken and was called out by the Transportation Security Administration on social media.
Photos shared on the agency’s Twitter page shows agents removing a gun wrapped in a bag inside the chicken. "There’s a personal fowl here. Our officers at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) @FLLFlyer made this very raw find. We hate to break it to you but stuffing a firearm in your holiday bird for travel is just a baste of time," the TSA captioned.
Air travelers bringing guns into Florida airports is becoming an alarming trend. So far this year, the TSA reported that passengers have brought 700 guns to checkpoints, including 120 seized at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The agency noted in these incidents that most of the guns confiscated by agents were loaded and had ammunition in the chamber.
The TSA shared on its website that unloaded guns can be carried in a locked hard-sided container as checked baggage only. Guns and ammunition also have to be declared at the ticket counter.
A TSA agent finds a gun wrapped in a package inside a raw chicken. (Photo courtesy of the Transportation Security Administration)
...According to the TSA, passengers that bring an unloaded gun with accessible ammunition to a security checkpoint face a fine or civil penalty. The agency can impose civil penalties of up to $13,910 for each violation.
I think I need a new lock for my case. And no, it won't be from the meat aisle.
I've been trying to dust off the blog again, and this week I've probably made more post than the last month. I'll keep working at it!
One of the things I want to restart is the Friday music send off for the weekend. I think you will enjoy this.
This song from Aerosmith is on my bucket list. Seeing the bank is touring again, hopefully the wife and I can finally get to see it live. But until that, Postmodern Jukebox will help. Their cover is excellemt.
Some months ago I became a weekly columnist for the American Free News Network. My post are generally every Tuesday morning. But here is one from a fellow columnist that is very pertinent with the Democratic party now. Especially with the elections ongoing, I think you'll find it interesting.
As the nation prepares to vote in the upcoming midterm elections, I couldn’t help recalling a couple of years ago when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stormed around the Capitol building purging it of all things reminiscent of the Confederacy.
That prompted House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to wonder if Pelosi should consider changing the name of the Democrat Party, given her newfound disdain for the Land of Dixie.
“The speaker has the power to do that,” McCarthy said in response to Pelosi, who ordered the removal of the portraits of four speakers who also served in the Confederacy.
“If the speaker is concerned about that, should she also start talking about changing the name of her party and chastizing the occupant of the White House?” McCarthy asked in a reference to Joe Biden, who referred to late Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd, a former KKK leader, as a mentor and “dear friend.”
In a letter to House Clerk Cheryl Johnson, Pelosi requested the “immediate removal of the portraits in the U.S. Capitol of four previous Speakers who served in the Confederacy: Robert Hunter of Virginia (1839-1841), Howell Cobb of Georgia (1849-1851), James Orr of South Carolina (1857-1859), and Charles Crisp of Georgia (1891-1895).”
A Confederate Democrat Speaker bites the dust al la Pelosi
All of those men were once members of her Democrat Party—the party that has a long, tumultuous history of defending the institution of slavery and fighting to keep it.
Pelosi also called for the removal of Confederate statues in the U.S. Capitol, characterizing them as “monuments to men who advocated cruelty and barbarism to achieve such a plainly racist end. The portraits of these men are symbols that set back our nation’s work to confront and combat bigotry,” Pelosi told reporters. “You have to see the remarks that they had made and how oblivious they were to what our founders had in mind in our country. We must lead by example, so we’re glad that that is gone.”
Pelosi’s comments and actions are the very height of hypocrisy, as well as an attempt to erase and rewrite American history.
For example, Pelosi has yet to address the role her father, Thomas D’Alessandro Jr., played in overseeing the dedication of the Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee Monuments in Baltimore’s Wyman Park while serving as the city’s mayor in 1948
“Today,” her father said in remarks at the time, “with our nation beset by subversive groups and propaganda which seeks to destroy our national unity, we can look for inspiration to the lives of Lee and Jackson to remind us to be resolute and determined in preserving our sacred institutions . . . . to remain steadfast in our determination to preserve freedom, not only for ourselves but for other liberty-loving nations who are striving to preserve their national unity as free nations.”
Gen Robt. E. Lee & Stonewall Jackson statue in Baltimore
Ahem. “Preserving our sacred institutions?” Did you mean, perchance, slavery, Mayor D’Alessandro?
But wait. There’s more. Pelosi’s father also encouraged Americans to “emulate Jackson’s example and stand like a stone wall against aggression in any form that would seek to destroy the liberty of the world.”
Not exactly politically correct, is it, Nancy?
And, of course, that is exactly what’s wrong with the hysterical imbeciles who are toppling statues and attempting to erase and cleanse America’s checkered history.
The past is the past. People a century ago or longer thought behaved and spoke differently from people in the 21st Century.
They certainly did so in 1948 when Pelosi’s father praised Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson during the dedication of those statues. I wonder if Pelosi, in her fervor to cleanse history, will call for those statues in Baltimore to be ripped down.
But wait! The statues were removed by the city in the dead of night, thereby saving them from defacement and destruction.
In that case, I wonder if Pelosi will condone the desecration of her father’s grave (as some have suggested with the graves of Confederate soldiers) because he was sympathetic to those two giants of the Confederacy.
Don’t count on it. Pelosi has conveniently forgotten the dark history of her beloved Democrat Party.
For example, its founder, Andrew Jackson, was a slaveholder and Confederate politicians were ALL Democrats.
Hmm. As they say on TV: “And that’s not all!”
The Democrat Party for decades fought desegregation, formed the Ku Klux Klan, resisted Reconstruction following the Civil War, created Jim Crow laws, and instituted the notion of separate but equal in the South—a clear violation of the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law.
Should this former Democrat President be purged?
The party itself is the very quintessence of hypocrisy. What about it, Speaker Pelosi? Is it time to cleanse the Democrat Party of its past sins? Should you not be working to eradicate its transparent and nauseating connection to the Confederacy?
Speaking of nauseating Democrats, what about Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va? A couple of years ago, on the Senate floor, he blathered that America “didn’t inherit slavery from anybody. We created it.”
That has to be the dumbest declaration ever made on the Senate floor. The Democrat Party has now completed its unconditional surrender to the forces of historical illiteracy.
Slavery has been rife throughout all of ancient history. Most, if not all, ancient civilizations practiced it, and it is described (and defended) in the early writings of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians. It was also practiced by early societies in Central America and Africa.
Three thousand years ago, Egyptians enslaved Jews who eventually escaped via something we now know as “The Exodus.”
Then there were the Romans. They enslaved just about everyone they conquered. And lest we forget, what about the million or so Europeans who were kidnapped by African Muslims and forced into slavery?
Here’s another reality. Slavery in America existed long before the first Europeans arrived. American Indians were slaveholders before and long after slavery became an institution in the South. In fact, slavery is the only African institution ever adopted by this country.
And here’s another salient fact: Portuguese — not Americans — brought the first slaves to Jamestown in 1619.
For those in this country who believe slavery in the world ended with the American Civil War, guess what? It still exists today and is even more prevalent than it was in the 19th Century.
Every day across the African continent, black men, women, and children are captured, bought, and sold into slavery, with the Western world paying scant attention. For example, in Mauritania, slavery persists, with tens of thousands of blacks continuing to be held in bondage.
In Sudan, tens of thousands of African women and children from mostly Christian villages were enslaved during the jihad raids of the Second Sudanese Civil War. At least 50,000 remain in bondage today.
According to the Global Slavery Index (GSI), 106,000 black Africans are estimated to be enslaved in Algeria. Migrant women and children of both sexes risk being forced into sexual slavery while men perform unskilled labor.
Sound familiar? For Democrats, it should. It’s what that party supported and protected for decades in the South until President Lincoln and the Union Army ended slavery by force.
Grant and Lee at Appomattox
And by the way, as bad as the turgid goons who ripped down statues in the summer of 2020 think this country is, America remains the only nation that fought a bloody civil war to end slavery.
But even then (unlike the demented zealots who rampaged through our cities in 2020), with more than 600,000 Americans from both sides dead and millions wounded in the Civil War, there was room for forgiveness, benevolence, and graciousness.
At the South’s surrender at Appomattox, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant allowed Gen. Robert E. Lee to keep his sword. As Lee mounted his horse to leave, Grant saluted him. Then, after announcing the South’s surrender at the White House, President Lincoln ordered the band to play “Dixie.”
It was a stunning and humane way to end the bloodiest war in America’s history–a point that is lost on the destructive imbeciles who ran amok in our cities a couple of summers ago.
