Monday, April 30, 2007
Flight of Fantasy
Been far too long since I posted an image- so here's a new one (to me) of Princess Leia by Adam Hughes.
British "Justice"
Yet again the safety and best interests of the British public are placed far behind those of dangerous terrorists-
A British court ruled Friday that two Libyan terror suspects cannot be deported to their homeland even though they pose a danger to Britain's national security.
All because they might be mistreated in their own country- despite an agreement between the British and Libyan governments which states just the opposite.
Ouseley's ruling said DD was a "real and direct threat" to national security and a "global jihadist with links to the Taliban and al-Qaida."
When detained in October 2005, DD possessed a map marked with the flight path to Birmingham International Airport in central England.
"The markings might have been for reconnaissance purposes but might have a wholly innocent explanation," the court's ruling said.
Why of course! It always makes me feel so good when international terrorists are given the benefit of the doubt in court. It makes sense really- the court admits he poses a very real threat to Britain and in the next breath declares that his terrorist plans might not mean anything at all. Yep, I can see the judge's logic at work.
The second man, AS, was "an Islamic extremist who has engaged actively and as a senior member with a terrorist group clearly engaged in support work for jihadist activities," the ruling said.
It said he was involved with a Milan-based group, monitored by Italian authorities, that planning a terrorist attack, most likely within Europe. He came to Britain in February 2002 and was arrested that May for immigration offenses.
And yet the court has decided that these two men should be allowed to roam free inside the United Kingdom. Why exactly do British law courts consider the welfare of two foreign nationals engaged in terrorist activities to trump the welfare of British citizens? Oh yes, because the EU says so-
As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, Britain is not allowed to deport people to countries where they may be mistreated.
Regardless of the risk to British citizens, I might add. According to the EU the "human rights" of terrorists are more important than the human rights of their potential victims.
A British court ruled Friday that two Libyan terror suspects cannot be deported to their homeland even though they pose a danger to Britain's national security.
All because they might be mistreated in their own country- despite an agreement between the British and Libyan governments which states just the opposite.
Ouseley's ruling said DD was a "real and direct threat" to national security and a "global jihadist with links to the Taliban and al-Qaida."
When detained in October 2005, DD possessed a map marked with the flight path to Birmingham International Airport in central England.
"The markings might have been for reconnaissance purposes but might have a wholly innocent explanation," the court's ruling said.
Why of course! It always makes me feel so good when international terrorists are given the benefit of the doubt in court. It makes sense really- the court admits he poses a very real threat to Britain and in the next breath declares that his terrorist plans might not mean anything at all. Yep, I can see the judge's logic at work.
The second man, AS, was "an Islamic extremist who has engaged actively and as a senior member with a terrorist group clearly engaged in support work for jihadist activities," the ruling said.
It said he was involved with a Milan-based group, monitored by Italian authorities, that planning a terrorist attack, most likely within Europe. He came to Britain in February 2002 and was arrested that May for immigration offenses.
And yet the court has decided that these two men should be allowed to roam free inside the United Kingdom. Why exactly do British law courts consider the welfare of two foreign nationals engaged in terrorist activities to trump the welfare of British citizens? Oh yes, because the EU says so-
As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, Britain is not allowed to deport people to countries where they may be mistreated.
Regardless of the risk to British citizens, I might add. According to the EU the "human rights" of terrorists are more important than the human rights of their potential victims.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Under the Radar
The EU superstate demonstrates its attitudes to the peasants it wishes to rule over.
I am clutching in my hot, trembling hands the most extraordinary document I have come across in eight years of Euro-politics. It is a letter from the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to her fellow EU heads of government. In it, she proposes a scheme to bring back the European Constitution under a new name - or, as she artlessly puts it, "to use different terminology without changing the legal substance".
That would be the Constitution rejected by voters the last time they tried to implement it.
These changes mainly involve dropping paragraphs that the voters don't like, and which are in any case unnecessary because they restate what is in existing treaties. Thus, Mrs Merkel suggests excising the reference to the primacy of EU law. Since this concept has been part of EU jurisprudence since 1964, she reasons, there is no point in rubbing people's noses in the fact by spelling it out.
Similarly, she has a clever wheeze to "replace the full text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a short cross-reference having the same legal value". And so on.
And the worst of it is that they're trying to sneak these changes through this time without any kind of referendum on the matter. The political elite didn't get their way last time so they obviously now consider that they can get the same result without having to run it past the people who vote first. I don't know what's worse- that our elected officials care more for the EU than their own country or that the vast majority of British voters most likely won't be appalled to the core by this.
I am clutching in my hot, trembling hands the most extraordinary document I have come across in eight years of Euro-politics. It is a letter from the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to her fellow EU heads of government. In it, she proposes a scheme to bring back the European Constitution under a new name - or, as she artlessly puts it, "to use different terminology without changing the legal substance".
That would be the Constitution rejected by voters the last time they tried to implement it.
These changes mainly involve dropping paragraphs that the voters don't like, and which are in any case unnecessary because they restate what is in existing treaties. Thus, Mrs Merkel suggests excising the reference to the primacy of EU law. Since this concept has been part of EU jurisprudence since 1964, she reasons, there is no point in rubbing people's noses in the fact by spelling it out.
Similarly, she has a clever wheeze to "replace the full text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with a short cross-reference having the same legal value". And so on.
And the worst of it is that they're trying to sneak these changes through this time without any kind of referendum on the matter. The political elite didn't get their way last time so they obviously now consider that they can get the same result without having to run it past the people who vote first. I don't know what's worse- that our elected officials care more for the EU than their own country or that the vast majority of British voters most likely won't be appalled to the core by this.
Barking Mad
Fighting crime UK-style.
A TEENAGER was taken to court at a cost of £8,000 — for BARKING at two dogs.
Sgt Douglas Johnston and PC Daniel Peacock arrested him.
Magistrates convicted him of causing harassment, alarm or distress to the dogs’ owner Sunita Vedhara — even though she did not complain.
Thankfully, there remain some in the legal saystem who have not completely lost their marbles-
But the farce finally came to an end when Judge Beatrice Bolton overturned the ruling, fuming: “The law is not an ass.”
Here's how this story played out-
Afterwards Kyle, a jobless labourer, told how chocolate labradors Princess and Ruby had bounded up to the gate at Sunita’s home.
He said: “They were both barking their heads off and so I did a daft little growl and went ‘woof, woof’ at them.
“The next thing I knew I was grabbed by the two police officers who bent my arms up behind my back and handcuffed me. I was in a cell for about five hours.”
Sunita, who has a son Karen, 13, said: “He was messing about being a daft young lad. The dogs weren’t really upset.
“We didn’t want him prosecuted, but the police said he was being taken to court, which we found surprising.”
And what do the local police have to say about it- will the two officers face any kind of action over this huge waste of taxpayers' money and abuse of power? Well, you can guess the answer to that-
A TEENAGER was taken to court at a cost of £8,000 — for BARKING at two dogs.
JPs found Kyle Little guilty of a public order offence and fined him £50, before a judge saw sense and quashed the conviction.
Apparently the chap in question was having some sort of contretemps with the local constables and was told to mind his language. He did and then barked at two dogs as he walked past a house. This being modern Britain the not-at-all spiteful law enforcement sprang into action.Sgt Douglas Johnston and PC Daniel Peacock arrested him.
Magistrates convicted him of causing harassment, alarm or distress to the dogs’ owner Sunita Vedhara — even though she did not complain.
Thankfully, there remain some in the legal saystem who have not completely lost their marbles-
But the farce finally came to an end when Judge Beatrice Bolton overturned the ruling, fuming: “The law is not an ass.”
Here's how this story played out-
Afterwards Kyle, a jobless labourer, told how chocolate labradors Princess and Ruby had bounded up to the gate at Sunita’s home.
He said: “They were both barking their heads off and so I did a daft little growl and went ‘woof, woof’ at them.
“The next thing I knew I was grabbed by the two police officers who bent my arms up behind my back and handcuffed me. I was in a cell for about five hours.”
Sunita, who has a son Karen, 13, said: “He was messing about being a daft young lad. The dogs weren’t really upset.
“We didn’t want him prosecuted, but the police said he was being taken to court, which we found surprising.”
And what do the local police have to say about it- will the two officers face any kind of action over this huge waste of taxpayers' money and abuse of power? Well, you can guess the answer to that-
A spokesman for Northumberland Police vowed: “We will be looking at what happened and if a mistake has been made we will learn from this.”
If a mistake has been made? Seems to me that they haven't learned anything at all.
Preventative Measures
I'm not sure how long this link will remain active but here's the story-
The Justice Department and a Northeastern Democrat have formed a rare alliance intended to restrict gun sales to terror suspects.
The key word here is not terrorist but suspect. Bear that in mind.
The bill, introduced late Thursday by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, after two years of study produced an endorsement by the Justice Department, would give the attorney general power to block gun sales to persons on terrorism watch lists. In some instances, the attorney general could let a sale go through -- for example, when stopping the sale would hinder a terrorism investigation.
The measure also includes ways for would-be buyers to appeal a denial by the attorney general.
"The administration finally realized that letting terrorists buy guns is dangerous," Lautenberg said. "This 'terror' gap in our gun laws has been open too long."
Okay, quick question- if a person is a terrorist why are they at large and not arrested? Who exactly gets to decide, without going before a judge and jury, that a person is defined as a terrorist? Does a cop or FBI agent or BATFE employee get to decide that someone is a terrorist suspect- perhaps a person just has a "beef" with the government.
The Justice Department, which endorsed the idea in letters this week to congressional leaders, said the delay was necessary in part to study potential situations in which barring a gun buy could interfere with investigations and intelligence collection.
So let me get this right- if a person is indeed a terrorist or a suspected terrorist I'd suggest two things- bring them before a court to charge them or, if they are foreign nationals inside the USA, kick them out of the country right away. As it stands it seems to be that suspicion of being a terrorist is sufficient grounds to be denied the right to keep and bear arms. Now, I'm sure that right now you're thinking about Islamic terrorists and 9/11, right? Well, how about all those right-wing Christian groups that the FBI, BATFE, etc consider terrorist threats to the United States? Or the environmentalists that a few years ago were considered the No. 1 terrorist threat by the Feds.
Perhaps in years to come anyone who doesn't agree with the laws coming out of Washington could be branded a suspected terrorist and thus denied the right to purchase firearms. Not so long ago a Democrat lawmaker was trying to brand groups like the Minutemen as domestic terrorists. This looks like the beginning of a very, very slippery slope. It seems to me that the recent Washington DC case which established that the Second Amendment was an individual right has not strengthened the pro-gun position but rather encouraged more extreme tactics from the gun-grabbers. They seem to be frantically trying to find ways to combat it.
And all the while there aren't even enough NRA members to put pressure on the NRA itself to explain why they handed Sheriff Bill Brown an A+ rating. Come on guys, you've seen what's happened here in the UK- do you really want to live like that too?
The Justice Department and a Northeastern Democrat have formed a rare alliance intended to restrict gun sales to terror suspects.
The key word here is not terrorist but suspect. Bear that in mind.
The bill, introduced late Thursday by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, after two years of study produced an endorsement by the Justice Department, would give the attorney general power to block gun sales to persons on terrorism watch lists. In some instances, the attorney general could let a sale go through -- for example, when stopping the sale would hinder a terrorism investigation.
The measure also includes ways for would-be buyers to appeal a denial by the attorney general.
"The administration finally realized that letting terrorists buy guns is dangerous," Lautenberg said. "This 'terror' gap in our gun laws has been open too long."
Okay, quick question- if a person is a terrorist why are they at large and not arrested? Who exactly gets to decide, without going before a judge and jury, that a person is defined as a terrorist? Does a cop or FBI agent or BATFE employee get to decide that someone is a terrorist suspect- perhaps a person just has a "beef" with the government.
The Justice Department, which endorsed the idea in letters this week to congressional leaders, said the delay was necessary in part to study potential situations in which barring a gun buy could interfere with investigations and intelligence collection.
So let me get this right- if a person is indeed a terrorist or a suspected terrorist I'd suggest two things- bring them before a court to charge them or, if they are foreign nationals inside the USA, kick them out of the country right away. As it stands it seems to be that suspicion of being a terrorist is sufficient grounds to be denied the right to keep and bear arms. Now, I'm sure that right now you're thinking about Islamic terrorists and 9/11, right? Well, how about all those right-wing Christian groups that the FBI, BATFE, etc consider terrorist threats to the United States? Or the environmentalists that a few years ago were considered the No. 1 terrorist threat by the Feds.
Perhaps in years to come anyone who doesn't agree with the laws coming out of Washington could be branded a suspected terrorist and thus denied the right to purchase firearms. Not so long ago a Democrat lawmaker was trying to brand groups like the Minutemen as domestic terrorists. This looks like the beginning of a very, very slippery slope. It seems to me that the recent Washington DC case which established that the Second Amendment was an individual right has not strengthened the pro-gun position but rather encouraged more extreme tactics from the gun-grabbers. They seem to be frantically trying to find ways to combat it.
And all the while there aren't even enough NRA members to put pressure on the NRA itself to explain why they handed Sheriff Bill Brown an A+ rating. Come on guys, you've seen what's happened here in the UK- do you really want to live like that too?
Connected
Imagine that you accidentally carried a bag containing firearms in the Senate building. You just forgot they were there. What do you suppose would happen? I'll bet good money that you- just a plain old citizen- won't get treatment like this-
A U.S. attorney's office on Friday dismissed weapons charges filed against a top aide to Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, after the aide brought Webb's loaded pistol into a Senate office building in late March.
Phillip Thompson, described by Webb's office as a "former Marine and ... a long-term trusted employee of the senator," was arrested in the Russell Senate Office Building. An X-ray machine spotted an unregistered firearm "with two fully loaded magazines," according to Capitol Police at that time.
Unlike Thompson, you aren't "connected", the political equivalent of the "Only Ones".
A U.S. attorney's office on Friday dismissed weapons charges filed against a top aide to Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, after the aide brought Webb's loaded pistol into a Senate office building in late March.
Phillip Thompson, described by Webb's office as a "former Marine and ... a long-term trusted employee of the senator," was arrested in the Russell Senate Office Building. An X-ray machine spotted an unregistered firearm "with two fully loaded magazines," according to Capitol Police at that time.
Unlike Thompson, you aren't "connected", the political equivalent of the "Only Ones".
Friday, April 27, 2007
Destroying America
In a very short space of time we've gone from demands by hoplophobes for "commonsense" gun laws to repealing the Second Amendment altogether to this- America the police state.
Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.
And not just handguns or assault rifles either-
Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.
So, on the say so of some clerk you could be prevented from taking your gun. Yep, hunters get to keep their high-powered weapons (ones that look innocuous mind you) for the duration of hunting season. But for how long? Until just one was used in a shooting I'd guess. It's a curious exemption but one you can bet that won't last. Such a plan would utterly destroy gun culture in America in a few short years. And antiques aren't exempt either-
All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard.
Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. They would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.
Yeah, you can still buy those antique weapons- and then go and look at them in a museum; I'm sure there will be a roaring trade for that.
The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.
Once the guns are outlawed, just what other sections of the Bill of Rights do you think will be erased?
Gun owners, lovers of freedom, Americans: the time to fight for your rights- all of them, not just the Second Amendment- is right now. The hoplophobes have revealed their intentions all too clearly- a United States which is made up of subjects, not citizens, whose homes can be searched at any time at the whim of the government. How long before free speech, freedom of religion or any of your other rights are considered to be obsolete by your rulers?
Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.
And not just handguns or assault rifles either-
Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.
So, on the say so of some clerk you could be prevented from taking your gun. Yep, hunters get to keep their high-powered weapons (ones that look innocuous mind you) for the duration of hunting season. But for how long? Until just one was used in a shooting I'd guess. It's a curious exemption but one you can bet that won't last. Such a plan would utterly destroy gun culture in America in a few short years. And antiques aren't exempt either-
All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard.
Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. They would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.
Yeah, you can still buy those antique weapons- and then go and look at them in a museum; I'm sure there will be a roaring trade for that.
The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.
Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for “carrying.”
There, simple isn't it? Turn America into a de facto fascist police state where those exercising their inalienable rights are turned into criminals, their homes invaded by jackbooted thugs on the whim of the state. So I guess the Fourth Amendment can be kissed goodbye as well as the Second.
Note too his curious optimism- a small number of police to search entire cities and towns; and he's positive that all guns will be seized. But of course, once an area has been searched it won't be gun free- it just means that there won't be any guns while the gun-Nazis are present. Once they've gone, the residents can dig up their guns or have more shipped in from other areas or overseas. If the state can't keep illegal guns out of tiny island Britain then what chance does the USA have? But that's besides the point- in an effort to disarm the people, this former diplomat is entirely prepared to trample the Constitution.Once the guns are outlawed, just what other sections of the Bill of Rights do you think will be erased?
Gun owners, lovers of freedom, Americans: the time to fight for your rights- all of them, not just the Second Amendment- is right now. The hoplophobes have revealed their intentions all too clearly- a United States which is made up of subjects, not citizens, whose homes can be searched at any time at the whim of the government. How long before free speech, freedom of religion or any of your other rights are considered to be obsolete by your rulers?
Big Brother At School
The thought-police spring into action-
High school senior Allen Lee sat down with his creative writing class on Monday and penned an essay that so disturbed his teacher, school administrators and police that he was charged with disorderly conduct.
What did he do? Write about murdering fellow students or teachers? No, not exactly-
Allen Lee, an 18-year-old straight-A student at Cary-Grove High School, was arrested Tuesday near his home and charged with disorderly conduct for an essay police described as violently disturbing but not directed toward any specific person or location.
Experts say the charge against Lee is troubling because it was over an essay that even police say contained no direct threats against anyone at the school.
But it was violent and "disturbed" his teacher.
Disorderly conduct, which carries a penalty of 30 days in jail and a $1,500 fine, is filed for pranks such as pulling a fire alarm or dialing 911. But it can also apply when someone's writings can disturb an individual, Delelio said.
"The teacher was alarmed and disturbed by the content," he said.
Cary Police Chief Ron Delelio said the charge was appropriate even though the essay was not published or posted for public viewing.
Seems like a bit of an over-reaction- the writer is described as a straight-A student. Perhaps his teacher could have perhaps, oh I don't know, spoken to him about it. Maybe, in extremis, she could have suggested that he speak to a school counsellor or some such- but to go to the police and have him charged with disorderly conduct? I guess in the aftermath of the VT shootings we can rely on school authorities to report any "deviant" behaviour, any signs of different thinking which alarms them. And it looks like there is sufficient knee-jerk reaction alarm still around for mental health restrictions to be relaxed sufficiently so that "no one slips through the cracks" again.
I guess we won't be hearing from too many budding horror writers in the near future.
High school senior Allen Lee sat down with his creative writing class on Monday and penned an essay that so disturbed his teacher, school administrators and police that he was charged with disorderly conduct.
What did he do? Write about murdering fellow students or teachers? No, not exactly-
Allen Lee, an 18-year-old straight-A student at Cary-Grove High School, was arrested Tuesday near his home and charged with disorderly conduct for an essay police described as violently disturbing but not directed toward any specific person or location.
Experts say the charge against Lee is troubling because it was over an essay that even police say contained no direct threats against anyone at the school.
But it was violent and "disturbed" his teacher.
Disorderly conduct, which carries a penalty of 30 days in jail and a $1,500 fine, is filed for pranks such as pulling a fire alarm or dialing 911. But it can also apply when someone's writings can disturb an individual, Delelio said.
"The teacher was alarmed and disturbed by the content," he said.
Cary Police Chief Ron Delelio said the charge was appropriate even though the essay was not published or posted for public viewing.
Seems like a bit of an over-reaction- the writer is described as a straight-A student. Perhaps his teacher could have perhaps, oh I don't know, spoken to him about it. Maybe, in extremis, she could have suggested that he speak to a school counsellor or some such- but to go to the police and have him charged with disorderly conduct? I guess in the aftermath of the VT shootings we can rely on school authorities to report any "deviant" behaviour, any signs of different thinking which alarms them. And it looks like there is sufficient knee-jerk reaction alarm still around for mental health restrictions to be relaxed sufficiently so that "no one slips through the cracks" again.
I guess we won't be hearing from too many budding horror writers in the near future.
Milita Arrests
So members of a militia have been arrested and arms seized. One of the men is apparently wanted as a "federal fugitive"- though the author of the piece doesn't see fit to tell us exactly what he's wanted for. The militia had quite a cache of explosives-
Agents recovered 130 hand grenades, a grenade launcher, about 70 hand grenades rigged to be fired from a rifle, a machine gun, a short-barrel shotgun, 2,500 rounds of ammunition, explosives components, stolen fireworks and other items, said Jim Cavanaugh, regional head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
I wonder just what the machine gun was- and was it legally owned? The journalist doesn't say. Anyway, what really caught my eye about the story was this-
The men, members of the self-styled "Alabama Free Militia," had no apparent plans to use the weapons, but the leader was described as a federal fugitive, federal authorities said.
Agents recovered 130 hand grenades, a grenade launcher, about 70 hand grenades rigged to be fired from a rifle, a machine gun, a short-barrel shotgun, 2,500 rounds of ammunition, explosives components, stolen fireworks and other items, said Jim Cavanaugh, regional head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
I wonder just what the machine gun was- and was it legally owned? The journalist doesn't say. Anyway, what really caught my eye about the story was this-
The men, members of the self-styled "Alabama Free Militia," had no apparent plans to use the weapons, but the leader was described as a federal fugitive, federal authorities said.
"They just have a beef with the government, and they stockpile munitions," U.S. Attorney Alice Martin said at a news conference in Fort Payne.
And that's a bad thing because?Politics of Journalism
I wrote yesterday about the differing attitude of the EU and the press corps on the kidnapping of journalist Alan Johnston and that of Galid Shalit in Gaza. It seems particularly apt to also mention this-
Britain's National Union of Journalists denounced Israel on Friday for its "military adventures" in Gaza and Lebanon, called on the government to impose sanctions and urged a boycott of Israeli goods.
That would be the same NUJ which condemns the kidnapping of Alan Johnston and urges his earliest release.
The conference voted unanimously to keep up the urgent global campaign for Alan’s release, praising the robust campaign of the BBC and expressing concern that the Government and Palestinian security forces have so far failed to carry out their promises to do all they can to free Alan.
And yet they're voting to boycott Israel. No mention of the continued rocket attacks from Gaza I see.
Britain's National Union of Journalists denounced Israel on Friday for its "military adventures" in Gaza and Lebanon, called on the government to impose sanctions and urged a boycott of Israeli goods.
That would be the same NUJ which condemns the kidnapping of Alan Johnston and urges his earliest release.
The conference voted unanimously to keep up the urgent global campaign for Alan’s release, praising the robust campaign of the BBC and expressing concern that the Government and Palestinian security forces have so far failed to carry out their promises to do all they can to free Alan.
And yet they're voting to boycott Israel. No mention of the continued rocket attacks from Gaza I see.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Going Wireless
Another afternoon of delays- my wireless router finally arrived and I spent an hour or so getting it set up (if you're new to wireless don't forget that you need to be wired to set up the router to begin with) and then moving my PC back upstairs to my office. My broadband connection is running better than expected (up to 3.7Mbps this afternoon), my wireless network is set-up and I can finally sit in comfort to surf the net.
At last.
At last.
Only Ones Making Deals
In a sane society this would be front page news- and yet ACE is the only blog covering the story that I've seen today. The rest of the MSM seem to think that an instance of police officers lying to obtain warrants and then killing an innocent person isn't newsworthy.
Grand jury results regarding the three officers who killed a 92-year-old Atlanta woman while serving a warrant will be released today.
Grand jury results regarding the three officers who killed a 92-year-old Atlanta woman while serving a warrant will be released today.
Two will plead guilty to a federal charge of conspiracy to violate a person's civil rights ending in a death and state charges that include voluntary manslaughter. The third is claiming he was the junior man on the narcotics team and the victim of other officers' bad habits.
He was only following orders and evidently his police training was not sufficient for him to realise that he was breaking the law. I guess if a young criminal was caught after shooting someone he could always argue that he was a "victim" of his elders who led him astray.
Here are some more details on the story-
The three offices were among a team of eight narcotics officers who raided the woman's home Nov. 21 hoping to get a cache of cocaine. They are accused of lying to get a warrant to get into Johnston's home.
Not just a warrant but a no-knock warrant to raid the house- and the elderly woman inside fired to defend herself before being gunned down. If a group of men suddenly burst into your home would you wait to see if they really were police before trying to defend your family? Is it really enough to hear someone shout "police" or do you suppose that a group of home invaders could do just that?
Here's where the Only One's privileged status comes into play-
Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard proposed an indictment that included charges of felony murder, burglary, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment and making false statements in the Nov. 21 raid at the home of Kathryn Johnston.
But Smith and Junnier moved before that presentment to procure deals, said people close to the investigation. And I'm sure that regular citizens would have those exact same options laid out for them. Not quite clear where the burglary charges would have come into play- have I missed some relevant detail?
In short, this behaviour does not appear to isolated. How many other police officers have made stuff up in order to obtain warrants?
Smith wrote the affidavit to get a no-knock search warrant at Johnston's home. Shortly before the raid, Smith told a magistrate that he and Tesler had a confidential informant buy $50 worth of crack at 933 Neal St. from a man named Sam.
But according to a proposed indictment, no informant ever went to Johnston's house.
Finally, a little related snippet of information- Atlanta police chief Richard Pennington has some changes in mind, he "announced a wave of policy changes that require the department to drug-test its nearly 1,800 officers and mandate that top supervisors must sign off on narcotics operations and no-knock warrants." Pennington is also the man who asked the FBI to lead an investigation into the shooting. Credit where it's due.
Double Standards
The EU has tabled a motion to demand the release of kidnapped journalist Alan Johnston in Gaza-
The emergency resolution urges the Palestinian authorities to redouble efforts to free Mr Johnston, who disappeared in Gaza on 12 March. It is also expected to call on officials to ensure that journalists in Gaza can work in safety, reports say. Lawmakers are set to adopt the resolution later in the day.
And of course the kidnapping is completely and utterly wrong- and yet I don't recall a single instance of the EU, or any of the BBC staff who protested the kidnapping, having a single word of support for Galid Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped last year by terrorists in Gaza.
Note too that the deputy head of BBC Newsgathering points out that an effort is being made to keep the Johnston story in the public eye. Much, much more than they ever did for Shalit.
Perhaps if they hadn't been silent on that matter, Johnson wouldn't be missing now.
The emergency resolution urges the Palestinian authorities to redouble efforts to free Mr Johnston, who disappeared in Gaza on 12 March. It is also expected to call on officials to ensure that journalists in Gaza can work in safety, reports say. Lawmakers are set to adopt the resolution later in the day.
And of course the kidnapping is completely and utterly wrong- and yet I don't recall a single instance of the EU, or any of the BBC staff who protested the kidnapping, having a single word of support for Galid Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped last year by terrorists in Gaza.
Note too that the deputy head of BBC Newsgathering points out that an effort is being made to keep the Johnston story in the public eye. Much, much more than they ever did for Shalit.
Perhaps if they hadn't been silent on that matter, Johnson wouldn't be missing now.
Crossing The Continent
Well, I seem to be just about caught up with what's happening in the world. Took me a while because I'm completely engrossed in Stephen Ambrose's book on the Lewis and Clark expedition Undaunted Courage. Terrific read- and I'm sufficiently hooked to delve deeper into this topic. If you're not familiar with this epic voyage of discovery then this book is a great primer.
What I'm really searching for at the moment however are books on the early colonial period of North America. I want to know more about the continent when it was first discovered. Unfortunately the American history section at my local Waterstones is pretty appalling- there's nothing at all about the first settlers. So if you know any particularly good books on the subject be sure to let me know.
On a vaguely related note, it's given me much to think about in regard to Kim du Toit's Crossing the Wilderness thought-exercise. The L&C group made the journey with .54 calibre rifles- there was sufficient game around for them to not need small-bore weapons specifically for hunting (and given that the men were eating about 8 or 9 lbs of meat every day it would hardly have been practical). In addition to hunting buffalo, they seem to have come across quite a few grizzly bears and a goodly number of Indians. So the prime purpose of having firearms for the crossing would seem to be big game and fending off potentially hostile Natives. Given that it's also a solo crossing I don't think that a bolt action rifle would be of much use- I'm tending more and more towards the idea that a Garand would be pretty much the ideal weapon. A .30-06 with premium bullets for hunting in a tough, battle-proven action just in case defensive fire is needed against a raiding party.
The next question of course is what route to take across 17th century North America? What kit do I take? Which boots are going to stand up to the journey?
What I'm really searching for at the moment however are books on the early colonial period of North America. I want to know more about the continent when it was first discovered. Unfortunately the American history section at my local Waterstones is pretty appalling- there's nothing at all about the first settlers. So if you know any particularly good books on the subject be sure to let me know.
On a vaguely related note, it's given me much to think about in regard to Kim du Toit's Crossing the Wilderness thought-exercise. The L&C group made the journey with .54 calibre rifles- there was sufficient game around for them to not need small-bore weapons specifically for hunting (and given that the men were eating about 8 or 9 lbs of meat every day it would hardly have been practical). In addition to hunting buffalo, they seem to have come across quite a few grizzly bears and a goodly number of Indians. So the prime purpose of having firearms for the crossing would seem to be big game and fending off potentially hostile Natives. Given that it's also a solo crossing I don't think that a bolt action rifle would be of much use- I'm tending more and more towards the idea that a Garand would be pretty much the ideal weapon. A .30-06 with premium bullets for hunting in a tough, battle-proven action just in case defensive fire is needed against a raiding party.
The next question of course is what route to take across 17th century North America? What kit do I take? Which boots are going to stand up to the journey?
Monday, April 23, 2007
Back Again!
After a long delay broadband has finally arrived at the Subterranean HQ- my promised modem and wireless router are still en route apparently but I'm not too bothered; turns out the estimated 1Mbps speed I was due to get was a tad on the conservative side. I'm actually getting 3Mps and over. Not bad considering I'm so far from the exchange.
Regardless, the nightmare that was dial-up is finally over and I can now actually view web pages without having to click "refresh" several times. And my email doesn't take ten minutes to download. All that remains now is for me to catch up on what's going on in the world and to start ranting about it once more.
Regardless, the nightmare that was dial-up is finally over and I can now actually view web pages without having to click "refresh" several times. And my email doesn't take ten minutes to download. All that remains now is for me to catch up on what's going on in the world and to start ranting about it once more.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Touching Base
Okay, broadband is still a while away and I'm currently dealing with the fact that my home doesn't appear to exist- my new ISP tried to set me up and British Telecom told them I don't exist. Strange. But this stuff happens to me all the time- computer records just don't seem to like me.
At the moment I have a dial up connection (a whopping 37Kbps!) to tide me over- enough to check in on War On Guns, Michelle Malkin, Clayton Cramer, and Little Green Footballs anyway.
That gun free zone at Virginia Tech didn't seem to work out quite the way the hoplophobes there had hoped. I wonder yet if they understand that gun laws only serve to disarm the law-abiding and render them helpless in the face of criminals who routinely break the law. It seems a simple enough concept to understand and yet the MSM hoplophobia is running rampant demanding more citizen disarmament. Are they really so dense that they can't see the consequences of taking guns away from the law-abiding so that they cannot defend themselves?
Anyway, hopefully be able to check in here a little more regularly now. Thanks for stopping by.
At the moment I have a dial up connection (a whopping 37Kbps!) to tide me over- enough to check in on War On Guns, Michelle Malkin, Clayton Cramer, and Little Green Footballs anyway.
That gun free zone at Virginia Tech didn't seem to work out quite the way the hoplophobes there had hoped. I wonder yet if they understand that gun laws only serve to disarm the law-abiding and render them helpless in the face of criminals who routinely break the law. It seems a simple enough concept to understand and yet the MSM hoplophobia is running rampant demanding more citizen disarmament. Are they really so dense that they can't see the consequences of taking guns away from the law-abiding so that they cannot defend themselves?
Anyway, hopefully be able to check in here a little more regularly now. Thanks for stopping by.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Still In Limbo
My stay in the wilderness continues- no phone until Monday, my broadband connection still a week away and no way to access the internet regularly. I feel like I've lost one of my senses trying to follow current affairs with the mainstream media.
Is this how people off-line get their information?
Blogging will no doubt resume new week if all goes according to plan.
Is this how people off-line get their information?
Blogging will no doubt resume new week if all goes according to plan.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Whereabouts Unknown
I'm not missing or anything like that- just in the process of moving house and finding a reliable ISP to replace the awful one I've been putting up with for the past few months. Blogging will resume shortly.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Risking Lives
So much for airport security.
Checkpoint security screeners at Denver International Airport last month failed to find liquid explosives packed in carry-on luggage and also improvised explosive devices, or IED's, worn by undercover agents sources told 9NEWS.
The problem here is simple-
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners failed most of the covert tests because of human error, sources told 9NEWS. Alarms went off on the machines, but sources said screeners violated TSA standard operating procedures and did not hand-search suspicious luggage, wand, or pat down the undercover agents.
Security simply not doing their job. The danger with terrorism is that we have to be constantly vigilant- they only need to get it right once to kill hundreds and possibly thousands of innocent people.
Sources told 9NEWS the Red Team was able to sneak about 90 percent of simulated weapons past checkpoint screeners in Denver. In the baggage area, screeners caught one explosive device that was packed in a suitcase. However later, screeners in the baggage area missed a book bomb, according to sources.
"There's very little substance to security," said former Red Team leader Bogdan Dzakovic. "It literally is all window dressing that we're doing. It's big theater on TV and when you go to the airport. It's just security theater."
It actually seems that the security in place is ridiculously bad- something that cannot possibly be justified post-9/11. Everyone knows the risks involved and for the TSA to be so negligent is criminal.
Dzakovic, who is currently a TSA inspector, said security is no better today [than before 9/11].
"It's worse now. The terrorists can pretty much do what they want when they want to do it," he said.
The TSA disagrees for preposterous reasons-
"We have a very robust program of which we are very proud, in which we utilize testing at all of our airports every single day," said Morris.
The security chief says he expects screeners to fail the Red Team tests because they are difficult.
"We could put these tests together so that we have a 100 percent success rate every single time," said Morris. "Then, they wouldn't be challenging, they wouldn't be realistic and they really wouldn't be stretching the limits and the imagination of the Transportation Security Officer."
In other words, the tests are based on what could actually happen and the TSA is ill-equipped to provide any kind of real security to passengers flying by air. They expect to fail tests that mirror reality and he has the gall to talk about it as some kind of "learning experience".
However, tests done by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2006 found widespread failures. According to the GAO, screeners at 15 airports missed 90 percent of the explosives and guns agents tried to sneak past checkpoints.
Also, a Denver woman who carries a Taser for personal protection, told 9NEWS she carried it on board airplanes last year six times. Her Taser shoots 500,000 volts of electricity. She says the TSA never caught it and stopped her.
Even worse, the funding required to hire more screening staff was buried in the "get out of Iraq" legislation that will be vetoed by Bush. If Congress was serious about this they wouldn't have done that but then again partisan politics trumping national security seems to be how things are these days.
Checkpoint security screeners at Denver International Airport last month failed to find liquid explosives packed in carry-on luggage and also improvised explosive devices, or IED's, worn by undercover agents sources told 9NEWS.
The problem here is simple-
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners failed most of the covert tests because of human error, sources told 9NEWS. Alarms went off on the machines, but sources said screeners violated TSA standard operating procedures and did not hand-search suspicious luggage, wand, or pat down the undercover agents.
Security simply not doing their job. The danger with terrorism is that we have to be constantly vigilant- they only need to get it right once to kill hundreds and possibly thousands of innocent people.
Sources told 9NEWS the Red Team was able to sneak about 90 percent of simulated weapons past checkpoint screeners in Denver. In the baggage area, screeners caught one explosive device that was packed in a suitcase. However later, screeners in the baggage area missed a book bomb, according to sources.
"There's very little substance to security," said former Red Team leader Bogdan Dzakovic. "It literally is all window dressing that we're doing. It's big theater on TV and when you go to the airport. It's just security theater."
It actually seems that the security in place is ridiculously bad- something that cannot possibly be justified post-9/11. Everyone knows the risks involved and for the TSA to be so negligent is criminal.
Dzakovic, who is currently a TSA inspector, said security is no better today [than before 9/11].
"It's worse now. The terrorists can pretty much do what they want when they want to do it," he said.
The TSA disagrees for preposterous reasons-
"We have a very robust program of which we are very proud, in which we utilize testing at all of our airports every single day," said Morris.
The security chief says he expects screeners to fail the Red Team tests because they are difficult.
"We could put these tests together so that we have a 100 percent success rate every single time," said Morris. "Then, they wouldn't be challenging, they wouldn't be realistic and they really wouldn't be stretching the limits and the imagination of the Transportation Security Officer."
In other words, the tests are based on what could actually happen and the TSA is ill-equipped to provide any kind of real security to passengers flying by air. They expect to fail tests that mirror reality and he has the gall to talk about it as some kind of "learning experience".
However, tests done by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2006 found widespread failures. According to the GAO, screeners at 15 airports missed 90 percent of the explosives and guns agents tried to sneak past checkpoints.
Also, a Denver woman who carries a Taser for personal protection, told 9NEWS she carried it on board airplanes last year six times. Her Taser shoots 500,000 volts of electricity. She says the TSA never caught it and stopped her.
Even worse, the funding required to hire more screening staff was buried in the "get out of Iraq" legislation that will be vetoed by Bush. If Congress was serious about this they wouldn't have done that but then again partisan politics trumping national security seems to be how things are these days.
Containment
A herald of things to come?
Behind the county hospital's tall cinderblock walls, a 27-year-old tuberculosis patient sits in a jail cell equipped with a ventilation system that keeps germs from escaping.
County health authorities obtained a court order to lock him up as a danger to the public because he failed to take precautions to avoid infecting others. Specifically, he said he did not heed doctors' instructions to wear a mask in public.
Behind the county hospital's tall cinderblock walls, a 27-year-old tuberculosis patient sits in a jail cell equipped with a ventilation system that keeps germs from escaping.
Robert Daniels has been locked up indefinitely, perhaps for the rest of his life, since last July. But he has not been charged with a crime. Instead, he suffers from an extensively drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis, or XDR-TB. It is considered virtually untreatable.
Why lock up a man who has done nothing but get sick?County health authorities obtained a court order to lock him up as a danger to the public because he failed to take precautions to avoid infecting others. Specifically, he said he did not heed doctors' instructions to wear a mask in public.
It actually could be an example of things to come. There are still fears of an avian flu outbreak or other superbugs. To stop the spread of fatal diseases the authorities could take drastic steps like this not only with individuals but even entire communities. Pretty scary.
Murdered School Children
I guess that FBI statement about not being concerned about all those foreign nationals with ties to extremists groups getting jobs as school bus drivers will be retracted now- and those foreign nationals will surely be booted out of the country immediately. Won't they? I mean, surely the risk of American school children being murdered by terrorists will prompt some action against them? Doesn't the safety of US kids trump any politically correct concerns the authorities have about hurting foreigner's feelings? Why not institute a policy of hiring only American citizens as school employees, whether it be bus drivers, janitors, crossing guards or whatever? Is that "offensive" in some way? Tough. Children's lives are worth more than hurt feelings.
Authorities fear the school massacre that shook Russia a few years ago may be a dress rehearsal for what al-Qaida plans to do in America – only on a grander scale, launching multiple school attacks simultaneously across the country.
Yet terror cells secreted inside America may be planning to use buses, as well as other vehicles and methods, as a Trojan horse to infiltrate school campuses and massacre students and teachers.
For too long now, a nation at war hasn't taken security seriously at all and I dread to think that they might pay for that with the lives of their children. It's been nearly three years since the horrors of Beslan- what have schools in the US or Britain done in that time to prepare for the possibility that it might happen to them?
Authorities fear the school massacre that shook Russia a few years ago may be a dress rehearsal for what al-Qaida plans to do in America – only on a grander scale, launching multiple school attacks simultaneously across the country.
Yet terror cells secreted inside America may be planning to use buses, as well as other vehicles and methods, as a Trojan horse to infiltrate school campuses and massacre students and teachers.
"The enemy is infiltrating us at all levels, and certainly school bus drivers are one area to look at," warned retired Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, president of Killology Research Group, an anti-terror consultancy that trains the FBI and other law enforcement. "And how about high school, middle school and elementary school cafeteria workers? Janitors? Delivery people?"
Grossman says some school district security officials he works with have expressed concerns about some of the Muslim employees schools are hiring.
"But no one dares profile them," he told WND.
Which is the big problem- how many dead American children will it take for the authorities to wake up and start being serious about security- and put it ahead of political correctness? If those in charge of school security have concerns they need to act on them now- sure, they might upset some people but so what? Terrorists already know that 99.9% of schools are gun free zones- no one in there can stop them. The time to act is before kids start getting killed.
For too long now, a nation at war hasn't taken security seriously at all and I dread to think that they might pay for that with the lives of their children. It's been nearly three years since the horrors of Beslan- what have schools in the US or Britain done in that time to prepare for the possibility that it might happen to them?
TSA Jokers
It looks like Michelle Malkin needs to start an "Only Ones" category on her site too- make sure to check the link to see the picture that goes along with this post too-
Kate Burgess and her boyfriend were returning from Mexico when they had a two-hour layover at MSP. As they placed their bags on the conveyor belt and went through security, Kate’s bag triggered a detector. According to Kate, when the detector went off a Transportation Security Administration employee said, "That’s it, call police."
As more TSA employees surrounded her, Kate suffered a severe asthma attack. That’s when a supervisor told her it was an April Fool’s joke.
"They scared me, but even worse they humiliated me…I won’t ever travel through Minneapolis again," Kate said.
And the response to this is more than predictable, in fact I can tell you know what's coming already-
In a statement, the Transportation Security Administration said, "TSA staff communicated with Ms. Burgess and expressed our regret. While our inquiry revealed no irregularities in the actual screening process, we do not condone or tolerate inappropriate remarks or behavior by our staff."
One rule for the serfs, another for the uniformed elite, eh?
Kate Burgess and her boyfriend were returning from Mexico when they had a two-hour layover at MSP. As they placed their bags on the conveyor belt and went through security, Kate’s bag triggered a detector. According to Kate, when the detector went off a Transportation Security Administration employee said, "That’s it, call police."
As more TSA employees surrounded her, Kate suffered a severe asthma attack. That’s when a supervisor told her it was an April Fool’s joke.
"They scared me, but even worse they humiliated me…I won’t ever travel through Minneapolis again," Kate said.
And the response to this is more than predictable, in fact I can tell you know what's coming already-
In a statement, the Transportation Security Administration said, "TSA staff communicated with Ms. Burgess and expressed our regret. While our inquiry revealed no irregularities in the actual screening process, we do not condone or tolerate inappropriate remarks or behavior by our staff."
One rule for the serfs, another for the uniformed elite, eh?
Hot Fuzz Gun
In my original review of Hot Fuzz I mentioned some of the weapons which appeared in the film. I said that one of them appeared to be a Steyr-Solothurn MP34 SMG, an rather unusual choice. Not everyone agrees- and the other prime suspect was the British Lanchester SMG, a weapon that was used by the Royal Navy here up to the '60s. Well, after a bit of fiddling I was finally able to grab a screen shot of the trailer showing the weapon in question. And here it is, though it';s hardly perfect (there is a brief glimpse of the weapon before the cocking handle has been grabbed but for some unknown reason I just cannot get it to pause right at that point)- I think you'll agree that it's a Steyr and not the more likely Lanchester (just where did the Hot Fuzz prop people get such a great selection of firearms?).
Monday, April 02, 2007
US Arms To Hamas?
The decision by the USA to not only train but arm Fatah could be about to blow up in its face- as Fatah declares its intention to arm Hamas in order for them to attack Israel. I guess they don't want to endanger their "moderate people we can do business with" tag.
“Yoram Turbowicz, Olmert’s chief of staff, and his Palestinian counterpart, Rafiq Al-Hussein, meet on a weekly basis, to no avail. Rice’s solution is just an attempt to appear as though she had made some sort an achievement,” the sources say.
“Yoram Turbowicz, Olmert’s chief of staff, and his Palestinian counterpart, Rafiq Al-Hussein, meet on a weekly basis, to no avail. Rice’s solution is just an attempt to appear as though she had made some sort an achievement,” the sources say.
“If they go on meeting without the release of prisoners or other gestures, we ourselves will supply Hamas with the weapons it wants,” they said.
In short, American-bought arms could be used against the USA's closest ally in the Middle East by a gang of murderous terrorist thugs. As if we couldn't see that coming.Crossing The Wilderness III
Kim du Toit is at it again- another chance to let your mind wander with the delightful proposition of being transported back in time to the east coast of America circa 1650- and to then traverse the continent solo. It's a thought exercise that appeals to me greatly.
The restrictions are: one long gun, one handgun, two knives, a "tool knife", an axe and a dog. You'll also have a horse, mule and some supplies. This time though there's a catch- no multi barrel/calibre options. Which kind of throws a spanner in the works. Figuring that hostile natives would be my main concern I was going to choose the venerable 1911 (Kimber Warrior most likely) as my handgun- and tuck away a .22 upper for it so that it could also be used to take small game as the need arose.
The rest of my choices are like this- Garand rifle, khukuri (complete with chakmak and karda- so we get to sneak in a skinning knife), a Chris Reeve Sable I, Leatherman Wave and a Bear Mountain Rogers' Ranger tomahawk. My choice of dog would be a Belgian Shepard. A bayonet for the Garand might accidentally find its way into my gear too...
Dangerous game- especially bear- is also a concern but I'm hesitant to alter the choice of the 1911 for, say, a Ruger Redhawk custom job- specifically a Bowen Kodiak in .45 Colt. There is the possibility that my rifle might be lost/stolen/damaged on the trip and a big bore handgun would then be a primacy source of obtaining game. And therein lies the frustrating hell of this exercise- one gun cannot do everything well. There are numerous possibilities to contemplate and no one choice of firearms will suit them all. In fact, it's perfectly possibly to waste hours considering different types of set up that you might take with you.
How about emulating WDM Bell and packing a Lee Enfield .303 and a Broomhandle Mauser? Actually, that's pretty a tempting combo. Or you could go all modern and take a 6.5mm Grendel AR and an FN Five-Seven?
I'm going to stop now. Well, stop writing about it, I'm actually off to ponder what my exact list of supplies will look like...
BTW, can anyone recommend any good books on the general period in question?
The restrictions are: one long gun, one handgun, two knives, a "tool knife", an axe and a dog. You'll also have a horse, mule and some supplies. This time though there's a catch- no multi barrel/calibre options. Which kind of throws a spanner in the works. Figuring that hostile natives would be my main concern I was going to choose the venerable 1911 (Kimber Warrior most likely) as my handgun- and tuck away a .22 upper for it so that it could also be used to take small game as the need arose.
The rest of my choices are like this- Garand rifle, khukuri (complete with chakmak and karda- so we get to sneak in a skinning knife), a Chris Reeve Sable I, Leatherman Wave and a Bear Mountain Rogers' Ranger tomahawk. My choice of dog would be a Belgian Shepard. A bayonet for the Garand might accidentally find its way into my gear too...
Dangerous game- especially bear- is also a concern but I'm hesitant to alter the choice of the 1911 for, say, a Ruger Redhawk custom job- specifically a Bowen Kodiak in .45 Colt. There is the possibility that my rifle might be lost/stolen/damaged on the trip and a big bore handgun would then be a primacy source of obtaining game. And therein lies the frustrating hell of this exercise- one gun cannot do everything well. There are numerous possibilities to contemplate and no one choice of firearms will suit them all. In fact, it's perfectly possibly to waste hours considering different types of set up that you might take with you.
How about emulating WDM Bell and packing a Lee Enfield .303 and a Broomhandle Mauser? Actually, that's pretty a tempting combo. Or you could go all modern and take a 6.5mm Grendel AR and an FN Five-Seven?
I'm going to stop now. Well, stop writing about it, I'm actually off to ponder what my exact list of supplies will look like...
BTW, can anyone recommend any good books on the general period in question?
Police Stories
Time again for the Only Ones. Also see my "policing" tag.
A RANDY cop is facing prosecution after raiding a brothel — and allegedly returning later for sex.
Not like he was going to run away... Next-
A father criticised a police force today for launching an investigation after his ten-year-old son allegedly called a schoolfriend “gay” in an email.
A RANDY cop is facing prosecution after raiding a brothel — and allegedly returning later for sex.
Married Manjit Johal, 42, even put a community officer on the front door of the den in Walthamstow, East London, to keep look-out, it is claimed.
The Met sergeant, who heads a community police team, faces a disciplinary hearing and is likely to be sacked.
He put a guard on the place himself and then went back? I sometimes wonder how people like this are able to function in the modern world, nevermind work as police officers. Next-
A legal expert says a judge's decision to find an off-duty Calgary police officer not guilty of drunk driving has nothing to do with favourtism [sic] of police officers and everything to do with the wording of the law.
Of course, judges would never ever give preferential treatment to police officers in a court of law.
An RCMP officer found Ross passed out in the car with his head on the driver's seat, along with vomit in the vehicle and beside it. Ross was charged with impaired "care or control of a motor vehicle."
And you or I too would surely have been acquitted. No sir, nothing to do with his Only Ones status. Next-
A bizarre standoff in Wilsonville took place between police and a double-amputee and ended with the suspect in the hospital.
After his car became stuck in the mud, Larson barricaded himself in his car for several hours and would not cooperate with police negotiators. Using the sun to their advantage, the SWAT team moved in, broke a window and tasered him.
Larson's rap sheet is filled with crimes involving theft, guns and drugs. His mother told negotiators his drug use causes severe paranoia. Negotiators didn't know if he was in possession of any weapons. It turns out he didn't. He was taken to the hospital for taser wounds.Not like he was going to run away... Next-
A father criticised a police force today for launching an investigation after his ten-year-old son allegedly called a schoolfriend “gay” in an email.
Company director Alan Rawlinson said he was astounded after two police officers arrived at his home in Bold Heath, Cheshire, to speak to his son George.
The officers were called earlier this month after a parent complained that George had called her son a “gay boy” in an email.
Of course the police responded to this- not like it was an old woman in immediate peril or anything. Nothing so risky or difficult as tracking down burglars or muggers.
“They told me they considered it a very serious offence, I thought they were joking at first.
Inspector Nick Bailey, of Cheshire Constabulary, said: “The matter was reported to police as the parents of the boy believed it was more sinister than just a schoolyard prank.
“Going to the boy’s house was a reasonable course of action to take. We do not feel this is something that should be pursued."
Valuable use of limited police resources- as Bag's Rants pointed out not so long ago the average time a police officer spends on patrol in an entire shift is only one hour. I guess this was the priority crime for these guys to investigate that day.
“The use of the word gay would imply this is homophobic but we would be hard-pushed to say this is a homophobic crime."
And yet they still thought it was reasonable to go and speak to the boy despite the fact that no crime has been committed other than being a bit politically incorrect? Since when was it the job of the British police to intimidate children into thinking correctly? So let's get this straight- it's a serious offence to call someone gay and yet police will be "hard pushed/2 to say it's an actual crime. Good thing the authorised journalist caught that obvious contradiction and question him on it, eh?
Tea With The Enemy
What's going on here?
U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.
U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.
The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq.
Can someone tell me why elected US representatives are meeting with a foreign power like this? Bush has refused to enter into talks with Syria because of their support for Hezbollah and the flow of men and material into Iraq- which is killing US servicemen. So why is a Congressional delegation (and a Republican one at that) meeting with the Syrian president and undermining the position of the president? Have they been authorised to do so? It doesn't appear so- the Bush administration is asking Pelosi not to go.
So why are so many elected officials so keen to visit the man ultimately responsible for the flow of terrorists and equipment into Iraq which is killing US soldiers and Marines? In any other time of war, Syria would be considered an ally of our enemy, if not our direct enemy. So why isn't the Bush administration doing something about it?Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.
Ignoring History
Another sign of Britain's slide into oblivion.
Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.
It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.
There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.
I guess it doesn't matter that these topics are part of the National Curriculum- evidently Muslim sensibilities trump that. And how could teachers possibly dare to contradict the local mosque? I suppose they'll stop teaching evolution too because it contradicts what the local church teaches too? These cowering, craven fools have no place in the classroom- to ignore actual historical facts for fear of offending pupils? It's shameful.
And once again Einstein's maxim is proved true; the press and educational establishments are the first to cave to any kind of pressure.
Freedom of speech and thought? Not if you're a teacher or journalist.
Read on too for this-
A lack of knowledge among teachers, particularly in primary schools, is also leading to "shallow" lessons on emotive and difficult subjects.
In other words, the teachers do not have sufficient knowledge to actually be teaching these subjects to pupils- one might think then that they should not have been given their teaching degree.
Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.
It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.
There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.
I guess it doesn't matter that these topics are part of the National Curriculum- evidently Muslim sensibilities trump that. And how could teachers possibly dare to contradict the local mosque? I suppose they'll stop teaching evolution too because it contradicts what the local church teaches too? These cowering, craven fools have no place in the classroom- to ignore actual historical facts for fear of offending pupils? It's shameful.
And once again Einstein's maxim is proved true; the press and educational establishments are the first to cave to any kind of pressure.
Freedom of speech and thought? Not if you're a teacher or journalist.
Read on too for this-
A lack of knowledge among teachers, particularly in primary schools, is also leading to "shallow" lessons on emotive and difficult subjects.
In other words, the teachers do not have sufficient knowledge to actually be teaching these subjects to pupils- one might think then that they should not have been given their teaching degree.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Moderate Malaysia
Malaysia is generally held up as a prime example of a moderate, modern Muslim state, not at all like the Muslim nations of the Middle East. Really?
A 24-year-old Muslim woman yesterday failed in her application to renounce Islam on the grounds that she did not practise the religion and was never given religious education.
You see in wonderful moderate Malaysia, you need government permission to change your religion.
Jasri, in his judgment, said although the Federal Constitution did state that every individual deserved to choose his or her religion, it did not give authority to the syariah court to allow Muslims to renounce their religion. "The court can only decide whether one’s action is permissible according to Muslim laws.
And then there's this, also from wonderful, modern, moderate Malaysia.
Religious minorities have long complained about obstacles in getting the government's permission to build places of worship in Malaysia. But their frustrations have grown amid recent accusations by religious rights activists that authorities are destroying non-Muslim shrines, heating up racial bitterness that has simmered for decades beneath a veneer of multicultural harmony.
Of course this is completely in line with Muslim laws for dhimmis- they are not permitted to build new places of worship or to repair existing ones which have fallen into disrepair or which are in in Muslim areas.
The issue of churches and temples is part of a wider debate in Malaysia regarding racial and religious rights. Majority ethnic Malays, who are exclusively Muslim, enjoy a host of privileges, while other groups struggle with issues such as a perceived lack of recourse when they get into legal disputes with Muslims over religious matters.
Of course they are treated differently- as non-Muslims they are considered to be second-class citizens, as less than Muslims
Racial harmony between the three groups is a fine balance, maintained mainly because the minorities have not made a fuss about Islam's primacy, and are accepting and thankful for the relative freedom they have to practice their faith.
In order to keep the peace the dhimmis are expected to know their place.
A 24-year-old Muslim woman yesterday failed in her application to renounce Islam on the grounds that she did not practise the religion and was never given religious education.
You see in wonderful moderate Malaysia, you need government permission to change your religion.
Jasri, in his judgment, said although the Federal Constitution did state that every individual deserved to choose his or her religion, it did not give authority to the syariah court to allow Muslims to renounce their religion. "The court can only decide whether one’s action is permissible according to Muslim laws.
"The reasons given by the applicant are based on fear of punishment which is against the teachings of Islam. Is fear a good enough reason?
It would seem so to me- especially given all of the actual examples of Muslim violence in Malaysia but the judge thought not. So this women is forced to remain a Muslim.And then there's this, also from wonderful, modern, moderate Malaysia.
Religious minorities have long complained about obstacles in getting the government's permission to build places of worship in Malaysia. But their frustrations have grown amid recent accusations by religious rights activists that authorities are destroying non-Muslim shrines, heating up racial bitterness that has simmered for decades beneath a veneer of multicultural harmony.
Of course this is completely in line with Muslim laws for dhimmis- they are not permitted to build new places of worship or to repair existing ones which have fallen into disrepair or which are in in Muslim areas.
The issue of churches and temples is part of a wider debate in Malaysia regarding racial and religious rights. Majority ethnic Malays, who are exclusively Muslim, enjoy a host of privileges, while other groups struggle with issues such as a perceived lack of recourse when they get into legal disputes with Muslims over religious matters.
Of course they are treated differently- as non-Muslims they are considered to be second-class citizens, as less than Muslims
Racial harmony between the three groups is a fine balance, maintained mainly because the minorities have not made a fuss about Islam's primacy, and are accepting and thankful for the relative freedom they have to practice their faith.
In order to keep the peace the dhimmis are expected to know their place.
But critics say that although religious freedom is a constitutional right, minorities are being indirectly victimized by laws and arcane rules.
Among them, religious conversion of ethnic Malay Muslims is illegal; authorities have strict guidelines that limit the number of non-Muslim places of worship, partly based on whether there are enough non-Muslims in an area to justify having a church or temple.
According to Town Planning Department guidelines non-Muslim places of worship can only be built after taking into account racial "harmony ... and not touch on the sensitivities of other faiths."
Laws also allow for the demolition of temples and churches built on sites deemed unsuitable by city officials.
All of which is perfectly in line with the standard laws of Islam- dhimmis must be submissive to them at all times and in all ways. Isn't modern and moderate Malaysia a simply wonderful example of a Muslim nation?Kossacks For Sharia
I suppose this sums up America's descent as much as the previous post sums up Europe's. The US isn't in quite as bad shape as their cousins over the Pond- but they're certainly on the same road.
But reading Michelle Malkin's rant about the difference between the MSM's self-censorship in this case and in the case of the infamous Danish cartoons sparked within me the need to comment.Just how ignorant is this woman? She must know that Islam forbids depictions of its Prophet, while Christianity has no such restrictions on artistic representation of Jesus. Right? She must understand that therein lies the fundamental difference in likelihood of offense between printing the Danish cartoons and running a picture of a chocolate Jesus.
Yes, you read that right- one of Kos' Libs is actually advocating for Sharia norms to inform just what is and isn't defined as free speech in the United States of America. So much for the First Amendment. Like I said, America is on the same road that Europe is travelling.
I generally try to avoid Daily Kos-and the comments in particular but AllahPundit recommended reading them. First this--
Malkin is in denial, she really wants a chocolate dick.
And the liberals there don't even bat an eyelid at it. Feminists, don't you have anything to say? Any of you liberals want to comment on that? Do any of you think it's at all appropriate to make a comment like this about a woman because you disagree with her politics? How about the poll which asks if Michelle is an "attention whore" or "ignorant" or "both"?
I've commented before on the bile that comes from the Left- and the usual response is that "it comes equally from both sides". Well, that's not true- the vast majority of this kind of talk comes from the Left, the Liberals. How they slander what that word used to stand for.
But reading Michelle Malkin's rant about the difference between the MSM's self-censorship in this case and in the case of the infamous Danish cartoons sparked within me the need to comment.Just how ignorant is this woman? She must know that Islam forbids depictions of its Prophet, while Christianity has no such restrictions on artistic representation of Jesus. Right? She must understand that therein lies the fundamental difference in likelihood of offense between printing the Danish cartoons and running a picture of a chocolate Jesus.
Yes, you read that right- one of Kos' Libs is actually advocating for Sharia norms to inform just what is and isn't defined as free speech in the United States of America. So much for the First Amendment. Like I said, America is on the same road that Europe is travelling.
I generally try to avoid Daily Kos-and the comments in particular but AllahPundit recommended reading them. First this--
Of course, what have Malkin and the Catholic League's people done in response to a chocolate Christ?
They've gone crazy and made death threats.
Michelle made death threats? The Catholic League made death threats? Really? I guess I missed the CNN report on that. And no one actually thinks to correct him- I guess in their minds Christians do issue fatwas.
Then this-Malkin is in denial, she really wants a chocolate dick.
And the liberals there don't even bat an eyelid at it. Feminists, don't you have anything to say? Any of you liberals want to comment on that? Do any of you think it's at all appropriate to make a comment like this about a woman because you disagree with her politics? How about the poll which asks if Michelle is an "attention whore" or "ignorant" or "both"?
I've commented before on the bile that comes from the Left- and the usual response is that "it comes equally from both sides". Well, that's not true- the vast majority of this kind of talk comes from the Left, the Liberals. How they slander what that word used to stand for.
Surrender
Europe- Britain included- is lost. The taking of 15 British sailors and Marines is, in my opinion, the incident that finally marks the end of Europe as a viable entity. Our culture is lost and all we can expect now is a creeping Islamisation that will eradicate the fruits of the Enlightenment: freedom of thought, tolerance, and equality are on their death beds here. Soon they will be gone, lost not to war but to our own inability to defend our culture, our way of life.
European foreign ministers failed last night to back Britain in a threat to freeze the €14 billion trade in exports to Iran, as the hostage crisis descended into a propaganda circus.
Tony Blair could only issue a new statement of disgust as Iran tormented him with another sailor’s video confession and a fresh letter from the young mother detainee.
France, Iran’s second-largest EU trading partner, cautioned that further confrontation should be avoided. The Dutch said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.
A third world bully has demonstrated to the world the weakness of the British government and its European allies. The EU has place foreign trade ahead of one of its member states. Disgustingly, Britain is unable to muster anything more than outraged words in the face of the kidnapping of its own troops. This is a watershed event- either we can stand up to our enemies or we can cower and retreat. We're already at war with Islamist terrorists- men who deliberately kill women and children, who saw the heads off their hostages, who oppress all those who do not follow their religion- and yet it seems that too many in Europe loathe themselves more than they do these psychotic monsters.
Is this how Western civilisation ends, in self-loathing and frightened appeasement?
European foreign ministers failed last night to back Britain in a threat to freeze the €14 billion trade in exports to Iran, as the hostage crisis descended into a propaganda circus.
Tony Blair could only issue a new statement of disgust as Iran tormented him with another sailor’s video confession and a fresh letter from the young mother detainee.
France, Iran’s second-largest EU trading partner, cautioned that further confrontation should be avoided. The Dutch said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.
A third world bully has demonstrated to the world the weakness of the British government and its European allies. The EU has place foreign trade ahead of one of its member states. Disgustingly, Britain is unable to muster anything more than outraged words in the face of the kidnapping of its own troops. This is a watershed event- either we can stand up to our enemies or we can cower and retreat. We're already at war with Islamist terrorists- men who deliberately kill women and children, who saw the heads off their hostages, who oppress all those who do not follow their religion- and yet it seems that too many in Europe loathe themselves more than they do these psychotic monsters.
Is this how Western civilisation ends, in self-loathing and frightened appeasement?
Child Killers
Islamist violence against innocent children is nothing new, there are numerous examples of children being murdered in the name of Allah in Iraq, Israel, Beslan- but this latest crime is too horrible to contemplate.
“When they cook a dish in the Middle East, it is traditional to put the meat on top of the rice when they serve it. They kidnapped a woman’s baby in Baghdad, a toddler, and because the mother was unable to pay the ransom, they returned her child – beheaded, roasted and served on a mound of rice."
The baby was murdered because he was an Assyrian, a Christian. And the Western media has pretty much completely ignored the story. Why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)