Monday, November 14, 2011

Code of Conduct, Texas Rangers, circa 1875,

Via Survival

as displayed at the Texas Rangers Hall of Fame, Waco, Texas
"All officers of the law are creatures of it and a creature cannot become bigger than a creator, and whenever an officer undertakes to set himself up as superior to the law or superior to the citizens, whose servant he is, his usefulness as an officer ceases."

State V The Slave Will 1834, My G, G Grandfather Wins

(The "portrait" is of my great, great Grandfather BF Moore. There are two, one at the Supreme Court in Raleigh and the other at UNC Chapel Hill's Planetarium. A professional photographer from Raleigh went to the latter, took the portrait down and with lights took a roll of 24 with a high end camera. We picked the best of the lot which she put on canvas and once I framed and hung it, you could not tell the difference when you walk into the room. His eyes still follow you. BT)


(Biographical History of North Carolina from Colonial Times to the Present, By Samuel A'Court Ashe.)
The most noted case, that of the State against Will, of a slave, and the greatest in the entire State was tried in Edgecombe County before Judge Donnell in the last Circuit Court, January 22, 1834. It was a case that awakened a general and profound interest throughout the country, and settled the true relation between master and slave in the State. It recognized the right of the slave to defend himself against the assaults of his master in the preservation of his own life a thing never asserted by slaves heretofore in the county.

A slave, Will, was indicted for the murder of Richard Baxter. Will belonged to James S. Battle, and the deceased, Richard Baxter, was the overseer of Battle, and was entrusted with the management of the slave at the time of the homicide. Early in the morning of the 22d day of January, the day the killing took place, Will had a dispute with another slave, Allen, who was also a slave of Mr. Battle, and a foreman on the same plantation of which the deceased was an overseer. A dispute arose between Will and Allen about a hoe which Will claimed as his own because of having helved it in his own time, but Allen directed another slave to use it on that day.

Some angry words passed between Will and the foreman, and Will broke out the helve, and walked off about one-fourth of a mile to a cotton field and began picking cotton. Soon after the dispute they informed Mr. Baxter, the overseer, of the occurrence. He immediately went into the house, and while he was in there his wife was heard to say, I would not, my dear; to which he was said to have replied in a positive tone of voice, I will. In a very short time after this Mr. Baxter came out of his house to the place where the foreman was and told him that he was going after Will, and instructed the foreman to take his cowhide and follow him at a distance. Mr. Baxter then returned to the house, took his gun, saddled his horse, and rode to the screw,1 a distance of about six hundred yards, where Will was at work.

State V The Slave Will 1834, My G, G Grandfather Wins

Gun law madness in NYC

The Market Ticker ®

In NY (as with the rest of the country) it is legal to kill someone who presents an unambiguous and credible intent to murder you.

However, if you do it with their firearm in NY you will go to prison for five years. Even when the shooting is is ruled justifiable homicide.

In a case seen as a test of the battered-woman defense, Barbara Sheehan, 50, was acquitted of second-degree murder last month after her lawyers successfully argued that she fired a gun at her husband only after he threatened to kill her.

So he threatened to kill her and she shot him. The jury bought it - that the threat was credible and he intended to actually imminently commit murder, making her shooting him justified under the law. So far we're good. But then...

She was sentenced in state Supreme Court in Queens to five years in prison and two years of probation on the unlawful gun possession charge, based on her use of her husband's weapons. She had faced a possible sentence of 3-1/2 to 15 years.

She shot him with his gun, and since we all know that The Second Amendment does not apply in New York (because the people of NY refuse to demand the protection of their right to keep and bear arms) she goes to prison for two to five years because she exercised her lawful right to prevent her own death using a weapon owned by the person who threatened to kill her.

Let's take this out of the realm of the "battered wife" issue for a moment and focus on something that might well happen to you.

You're walking down the sidewalk in Queens. Suddenly a man pops out from around a corner and sticks a gun in your face, demanding your wallet. You withdraw your wallet to comply, and as you do so a car backfires nearby, startling the robber. He turns and you grab his pistol, successfully relieving him of it.

He then pulls a second weapon from his belt and is about to shoot you with it.

If you drop him -- a perfectly legal shoot anywhere in the United States under these circumstances -- you go to prison for 2-5 years for unlawfully possessing the weapon you just successfully defended yourself with and which you took from your assailant!

If the people of New York allow this to stand then there is never a purpose for any justice-minded person to ever set foot in that city again.

Obama Names Radical Islamist to Post

Via The Scottcarp Dream

Obama has announced the appointment of Azizah al-Hibri to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Al-Hibri (full name, Azizah Yahia Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri) is a Muslim professor and the granddaughter of a Sheikh, who claims that the Koran inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founders and that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.

Appointing a Muslim scholar to a commission on international religious freedom is only justifiable if that scholar recognized that much of the injustice in the world originates from Islamic law. But Al-Hibri has made her career whitewashing Islamic law and even presenting it as superior to American law. While she has been called a reformer, her call in 2001 for a return to the fundamentals echoes Wahhabi rhetoric. Rather than examining the incompatibilities of Islamic law and the modern world, and urging the appropriate adjustments, as genuine reformers have done, Al-Hibri instead builds myths that uphold the Islamist agenda.

According to Al-Hibri, “Islamic fiqh is deeper and better than Western codes of law”. She favorably compares Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accept blood money bribes to excuse a murder, to the “impersonal and powerful” American justice system. Al-Hibri is often billed as a Muslim feminist, but she is equally hypocritical on women’s rights. Rather than conceding that Islamic law discriminates against women, she whitewashes its discriminatory treatment of women, arguing that guardianship is meant to protect “inexperienced women”.

Rather than trying to bring Islam in line with the modern world, Azizah Al-Hibri pushes for the modern world to be brought in line with Islam. Rather than reforming Islam, it is America that she would like to reform to Islamic standards. Placing a woman who believes that American law is inferior to that of the Koran on an American commission to promote international religious freedom perverts the purpose of the commission and promotes religious tyranny instead.




Via Michael

Some Sharp Eyes Catches Some Real Peculiar Things Going On In Some Obama Photos

Via The Scottcarp Dream

Give Us Liberty 1776 is a sensational site that does the work that the MSM would never bother themselves with. It attempts to investigate the glaring gaps in the Obama dossier. In this attempt we sometimes create smoke when there is no fire. But this is not our fault. What else can we do? Who is this president? Where are his Columbia transcripts. Where are his friends from Columbia? Where are the pictures of him on campus?

Give Us Liberty posts a couple of pictures that have some troubling anomalies in them. Here is their post -


GOA Urgent Alert House Vote Coming Soon on CCW Reciprocity Bill

Residents can get an out-of-state permit, but under H.R. 822 they would be unable to carry in their home state. This, obviously, creates the odd situation of requiring states to recognize the permits of non-state residents, but not recognizing those of state residents who have out-of-state permits.

On the contrary, H.R. 2900 allows recognition in any state that allows concealed carry, thus letting citizens who live in these restrictive “may issue” states to still carry handguns in their home state so long as they hold a valid out-of-state permit.

The House of Representatives is expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity legislation tomorrow (Tuesday, Nov. 15). H.R. 822, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), will allow many people who possess a concealed carry permit in one state to carry in other states as well.

While well-intentioned, there are several concerns with this legislation. In an effort to address these issues, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced separate legislation (H.R. 2900), which has the support of GOA.

Please read on to learn more about specific problems with H.R. 822 (the bill coming to the floor tomorrow) and the differences between it and H.R. 2900.

And then, it is vitally important for all gun owners to contact their Representatives and urge them to cosponsor H.R. 2900.

ACTION: Urge your Representative to help fix H.R. 822 and to cosponsor the Broun legislation.

Flaw #1: H.R. 822 Destroys Vermont Carry

In Vermont, it has long been the case that law-abiding residents and non-residents alike could carry a concealed firearm, except for use in the commission of a crime. The state, incidentally, also has the distinction of consistently being ranked one of the safest states in the country.

H.R. 822 does not grant reciprocity to residents of Vermont, as the bill requires the presence of a physical permit in order to qualify. The state would be forced to move to a permit system for purposes of reciprocity, in effect being punished for having a system that is “too pro-gun.”

Separate legislation H.R. 2900—supported by GOA and introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)—would recognize the right of Vermont residents to carry in other states, requiring only that a picture identification (such as a drivers license) be in possession of the person carrying.

Flaw #2: H.R. 822 Undermines Constitutional Carry

Following the lead of Vermont, several states have taken up the issue of Constitutional Carry—where citizens do not need to obtain government permission before carrying a concealed firearm. Criminals, after all, are not inclined to line up at the sheriff’s office or police department in order to obtain a permit to carry, so such requirements primarily burden the law-abiding segment of society.

In recent years, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming have passed Constitutional Carry laws based on the Vermont model. Montana passed such a law that covers 98% of the state, and Texas passed a “constitutional carry lite” law that applies to firearms carried in a vehicle.

These states, however, left in place a permitting system specifically for the purposes of reciprocity. And although upwards of 6 million Americans have obtained permits, most gun owners do not get a permit because they don’t like a system that treats their liberty as a privilege granted by the government.

About 98% of the adult American population, therefore, will be left out of the expansion of rights under (H.R. 822) whereas under H.R. 2900, more and more citizens will be covered as Constitutional Carry gains momentum. In this important respect, H.R. 822 pulls the rug out from under state legislatures which are considering Constitutional Carry, while H.R. 2900 does not.

Contact your Representative to send a pre-writtin message.

Flaw #3: H.R. 822 Does Not Help Many Residents in “May Issue” States

H.R. 822 allows for carry in any state except for Illinois and the state of one’s residence. This will prove to be a major obstacle for gun owners to carry in their home states in many instances.

In many states, a person must be one of the lucky few or well-connected citizens in order to get a carry permit. Simply put, in some areas (i.e., California, Maryland, and Massachusetts), it’s nearly impossible for residents to get a permit.

Residents can get an out-of-state permit, but under H.R. 822 they would be unable to carry in their home state. This, obviously, creates the odd situation of requiring states to recognize the permits of non-state residents, but not recognizing those of state residents who have out-of-state permits.

On the contrary, H.R. 2900 allows recognition in any state that allows concealed carry, thus letting citizens who live in these restrictive “may issue” states to still carry handguns in their home state so long as they hold a valid out-of-state permit.

In the landmark McDonald v. Chicago decision (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. H.R. 2900 simply puts “teeth” into that ruling.

Flaw #4: H.R. 822 Takes Expansive View of the Commerce Clause

H.R. 822 relies on an abused and expansive view of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The bill states that because firearms “have been shipped in interstate commerce,” the Congress in justified in passing this legislation. That is not the “commerce” the Founder’s envisioned as they sought to remove barriers of interstate trade.

The modern and broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause would, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Gonzales v. Raich), confer on the federal government the power to “regulate virtually anything – [until] the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

The Broun bill ensures that citizens enjoy the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.

Respecting the Constitution

Any federal legislation that imposes demands on the states must be scrutinized carefully by the language of the Constitution. At this point, a cynic might correctly point out that Congress passes bills on a weekly basis that go beyond what the Constitution allows. But we must be especially careful, as people who work towards federalism and constitutional government, not to fall into the trap of the end justifying the means.

H.R. 822 would certainly benefit many Americans, although that number represents only a small fraction of all gun owners. But the bill has several deep flaws that could be fixed by Rep. Broun’s legislation.

ACTION: Contact your Representative and ask that he or she urge the leaders of the House to amend H.R. 822 to fix its serious concerns. The pre-written letter also asks your Rep. to cosponsor the Broun legislation.

Ex-cop boots OWS heckler from congressman's swearing-in

Via The Feral Irishman

SHOUT OUT: A stunned Weissman could blurt out just, “Bob Turner has only been in office for two months and . . .” before getting the heave-ho from Hiltunen.

Meet New York’s newest hero.

Kevin Hiltunen, a former NYPD officer, yesterday grabbed an Occupy Wall Street demonstrator by the collar and dragged him out of a Queens school where he’d been heckling US Rep. Bob Turner at the congressman’s swearing-in ceremony.

“I guess you could say I sorted him out,” said Hiltunen, 48, his jacket and tie barely mussed after dragging the scruffy protester out on his rear end.

“All I was doing was trying to stop this historic occasion from being disrupt-ed. There is a time and place to exercise your First Amendment rights,’’ said Hiltunen, of Bergen Beach, Brooklyn, who was identified by people at the ceremony as an ex-Marine.

Charges dropped against veteran

Via The Feral Irishman


All of David Sturdivant's possessions fit in a paper sack he held tightly as he waited Friday in a wheelchair, with a folded walker, outside the Fulton County Jail. He had been an inmate there since a police officer shot him in the stomach seven months ago.

David Sturdivant, who was shot in the stomach and arrested by the Atlanta Police Department in April, was released from jail today Friday November 11, 2011 after the charges against him were dropped.

Pipes, tires and trash are scattered all over the property once owned by David Sturdivant on Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011. His deceased father's house is on the property but it also has been looted.

Since then, the 64-year-old former Marine and Purple Heart recipient has lost a kidney, his home, his business and all his belongings. But Friday he gained his freedom after prosecutors dismissed six felony charges related to an incident at Sturdivant's home where he shot at someone he thought was stealing from him.

"I'm numb," Sturdivant said, his gray beard long and his once-salt-and-pepper hair much lighter than when he was arrested on April 8. On that day Sturdivant fired four intermittent shots from his commercial-grade M14 into the dirt to frighten off a man he thought was a thief.

Police officers were nearby and heard the gunfire. Moments later, one of them shouted "drop your weapon" and a second later fired, according to a recording of the event.

Sturdivant, who was on the second-floor porch outside his bedroom, said he never heard the shot from police and he didn't really feel it.

"I looked down and saw a hole in my side," Sturdivant said. "I backed up. I kneeled down and put the gun down. Gathered my wits and stood up and walked to the side"

In addition to losing a kidney, Sturdivant said he also lost "several inches" of his colon.


Wars and Rumors of Wars by Judge Napolitano

Via Green Mountains Homesteading

Obama-Endorsed #Occupy Wall Street Killing Local Businesses

Atlas Shrugs
This is our disgusting Mayor Doomberg, coward and quisling. How duplicitous is this useful idiot? It took six months to get a permit for our 911 freedom Rally on the tenth anniversary of 911. They shut us down at exactly 5:30 pm. We asked for 15 more minutes for the harpist and G-d Bless America, and they said absolutely not. NYPD said our permit was for 5:30pm. Period.

But these lawless dregs have complete run of this now filthy area of lower Manhattan. And the Mayor calls this free speech. This asshat does not even understand the first amendment. The intepretation of these protests as symbolic of free speech is wrong. There is a distinction between speech and action. They do not have the right to co-opt and take over public parks or shut down public streets. This is of course started with the hippie revolutionaries in the sixties. It should have been stopped then.

It is public property. They do not have the right to do what they want with it whenever they want. Is there no Mayor brave enough to take this on? This should be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Occupy Wall Street costs local businesses $479,400! NY Post Exclusive hat tip Pamela Hall

It makes no cents.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has cost surrounding businesses $479,400 so far, store owners said.

A Post survey of a dozen restaurants, jewelry shops, beauty salons, a chain store and mom-and-pop establishments tallied almost a half-million dollars lost in the 53 days since the Zuccotti Park siege began on Sept. 17.

“We’re done with them!” barked one Broadway business owner. The restaurateur -- who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals -- said his profits drained as soon as campers moved in.

“My customers used to take food to eat in the park, but now they can’t,” he lamented.

TRASH TALK: Occupy Wall Street protesters have cost local businessmen like Mike Rauach, of VIP Men’s Suits, dearly. Customers “run away,” he says.

With clogged streets, aggressive signs and stories of predators and criminals lurking among the knot of protesters, business owners and managers say shoppers are not taking the risk of coming to the area.

“They think the protesters are violent,” said Jewelry 21 manager Danny Nia.

It’s worst on Saturdays, when protesters parade up and down Broadway all day long, the businesses said.

“When they march on the sidewalk, everyone runs away,” said Mike Rauach, owner of VIP Men’s Suits on Broadway. “They kill business.”

Some businesses have suffered higher staffing costs. Stubborn occupiers, for example, often hold impromptu meetings inside coffee shop Pret a Manger, forcing workers to stay hours past closing time.

“They’d keep asking for 20 minutes, 20 minutes,” one worker complained.

And the coffee shop has lost loyal customers who now can’t find a place to sit.

“But we can’t tell [OWS protesters] to leave,” the worker added.

The movement costs the dozen businesses just over $9,000 a day.

That figure doesn’t include money spent on toilet paper, cleaning supplies and repairs, businesses said, as the tent dwellers turn bathrooms into personal washrooms.

On two separate occasions the owner of the Essex World Cafe has rolled up his gate to find someone had defecated on it overnight.

“It must be a good place for them to hide,” the owner cringed.

Next door at Ho Yip, a Chinese restaurant, filthy clothes and underwear carpet the bathroom floor, the manager said.

“I have to pick it up,” the manager groused.

Read the rest of this.

UPDATE: SHOWDOWN: Small Biz Owners Plan Occupy Wall St. Counter-Protest

( Small business owners and local residents fed up with the “Occupiers” at Zuccotti Park in New York City are planning a counterprotest and news conference of their own Monday, to make clear the crowd has long overstayed its welcome — and that businesses will not survive if the “occupation” continues.

Flyers are being passed around at small businesses and residential buildings around the park in downtown Manhattan promoting a “Protest against the Occupy Wall St. and Mayor Bloomberg who does nothing to get them to leave.”

Supreme Court Takes Up Obamacare

Breaking News: This morning the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Obamacare is Constitutional. The Court granted petitions filed by various parties in the cases originating from Florida. Liberty Legal Foundation is already preparing an amicus brief to be filed in this case.

The Court has allotted 5 hours for oral argument, to be held next March. This is an unusually large allotment of time for oral argument, reflecting the complexity and importance of the issues.

The Court identified three issues to focus on: 1) Whether the individual mandate is within Congresses authority under the commerce clause; 2) Whether the individual mandate is a tax or a penalty; and 3) Whether all of Obamacare must be thrown out if the individual mandate is thrown out.

Once again Liberty Legal Foundation will be the only organization arguing that the commerce clause was grossly misinterpreted by the 1942 Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn. We’re the only ones saying that ALL of Obamacare is unconstitutional. The fact that all Obamacare rulings to date reference Wickard illustrates that this precedent is the crux of the issue.

All of the other Obamacare opponents are arguing that the individual mandate simply goes too far. They concede that Wickard v. Filburn is good precedent and, with wishful thinking, advance that the individual mandate is beyond Congressional authority even under Wickard. They are wrong because they refuse to accept that Wickard left no limits on Congressional authority. Thankfully, this is exactly what the DC Circuit Court explained just last week.

By ignoring the problem and focusing on the symptoms, the other Obamacare opponents are playing into Obama's hands. As I’ve written before, the individual mandate was included intentionally to be a lightning rod issue. By focusing on the individual mandate, the other opponents are forced to concede that everything else in Obamacare is constitutional. Obama figured that if he lost this throw away issue, at least the rest of the law would survive. If they won, then they get everything they want and move on to their next violation of individual freedom. In either case most of Obamacare survives.

Liberty Legal Foundation is the only group advancing the clearest solution to the true problem, not just a band-aid fix. But the only way to get there is to first admit that the individual mandate is within Congressional authority under Wickard, because Wickard eliminated all limits on Congressional authority. Only by making this admission can we demonstrate the absurdity of the Wickard precedent and show the Supreme Court the clear solution to the Obamacare question: Overturn Wickard!

The Federal government has now admitted in court that under Wickard there are no limitations on Congressional authority. We must use this rare moment of clarity to assure that the Supreme Court fixes their 70 year-old mistake.

I understand the aversion to admitting that Congress currently has no limits on its authority. But denying the truth does not fix the problem. Everyone needs to accept the fact that Congress has been acting outside its Constitutional scope of authority since 1942. This is why our Federal government is completely out of control. Obamacare is simply the latest proof of this fact. The only way to start to restore our Constitutional Republic is to overturn Wickard.

Even if the other opponents to Obamacare were to succeed, the parties arguing that the individual mandate is “beyond Wickard” would leave Wickard as valid precedent. Their arguments will leave most of Obamacare in place. Their arguments will leave us with a Congress that understands that it has ALMOST no limits on its power. Such a victory would be a hollow one that would leave us worse off than we were before.

We need your support now more than ever. Filing an amicus brief will take a great deal of resources. Please support our efforts to restore our Constitutional Republic.

In Liberty,

Van Irion

Co-Founder, Lead Counsel


Obama's Virginia Defeat

Via Old Virginia Blog

Democrats were trounced in Tuesday's state legislature election, despite the president's heavy investment of time in the state.

Of all the noise of this week's state election results, what mattered most for Election 2012 came out of Virginia. It was the sound of the air leaking out of the Plouffe plan.

That would be David Plouffe, President Obama's former campaign manager and current senior strategist, who is focused today on how to cobble together 270 electoral votes for re-election. That's proving tough, what with the economy hurting Mr. Obama in states like Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania that he won in 2008. The White House's response has been to pin its hopes on a more roundabout path to electoral victory, one based on the Southern and Western states Mr. Obama also claimed in 2008.

Democrats were trounced in Tuesday's state legislature election, despite the president's heavy investment of time in the state.

States like Virginia. Mr. Obama was the first Democrat to win Virginia since 1964; he beat John McCain by seven percentage points; and he did so on the strength of his appeal to Northern Virginia's many white-collar independents. Along with victories in North Carolina, Colorado and Nevada, the Obama Old Dominion win in 2008 inspired a flurry of stories about how Democrats had forever altered the political map.

So the White House is pouring resources into what Tim Kaine, the state's former Democratic governor, now pridefully refers to as Democrats' "New Dominion." The Obama campaign has held some 1,600 events in the state in the last half-year alone. Only last month Mr. Obama hopped a three-day bus trip through Virginia and North Carolina. Obama officials keep flocking to the state, and Tuesday's election was to offer the first indication of how these efforts are succeeding.

Let's just say the New Dominion is looking an awful lot like the Old Dominion. If anything, more so.

Gulf of Maine Gunsmithing Has a Message For You

Via The Feral Irishman

Updated: The Current Rap Sheet for The Occupiers

Via The Feral Irishman

Big Government

One of the secret weapons the corrupt mainstream media uses in their never-ending quest to Palace Guard for the left is context. For example, when it came to the Tea Party, the MSM was notorious for amplifying a single incident (that was usually a lie) and using it to attempt to smear and define an entire movement. This is what you do when you want to quickly take out a political enemy.

The MSM’s contextual game changes, however, when their desire is to strengthen a movement and give it credibility and room to grow. By dutifully reporting individual incidents but not reporting on the growing scope and size of Occupy Wall Street lawlessness, the MSM is willfully covering up the violence, vandalism, and anti-Semitism that truly does define this movement.

Moreover, by intentionally keeping the pieces of this story scattered, the MSM is allowed to have their cake and eat it too. No one can accuse them of not reporting these incidents, but by choosing not to bring the pieces together, the MSM ensures the least amount of public relations damage is done to the Occupiers.

What I’ve collected below is far from comprehensive but still shows over 75 incidents of sexual assault, violence, vandalism, anti-Semitism, extortion, perversion, and lawlessness.

The MSM could easily tell the story of how this violence-prone movement is becoming an increasing threat to our society. After all, my research below is the result of nothing more than Twitter and Google. Among others, The New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, and the LA Times have willfully chosen not to use the resources at their disposal to give the public an honest look at this growing menace. In their partisan minds, truth doesn’t trump agenda.

A few notes on the list below. Whenever possible, I traced the incident back to the original news source. I was as careful as possible when it came to duplicate postings, though I would guess there are a few in here. There are also less than five examples that don’t involve what I would qualify as outright lawlessness but do help to expose the Occupiers for who and what they really are. Finally, and this is the most important way in which the list is imperfect, I most certainly wasn’t able to document everything. A perfect list would be much more alarming than the one I slapped together in just a few hours.

What is true is that on October 18, pollster Doug Schoen (a Democrat!) discovered that a full 31% of Occupiers were willing to commit violence in pursuit of their agenda, whatever that is. As a response to this startling and frightening admission, the MSM either outright ignored or dismissed it. What you’ll see below proves that at least when it comes to their willingness to break the law, the Occupiers are keeping their word.

The list is in no particular order. Like the Occupiers themselves, it’s unruly, disorganized, messy and not focused solely on the nation’s media centers. The movement is spreading across America and bringing with it their outrageous and appalling behavior.

1 - 232

Since Obamacare’s Passage, Millions Have Lost Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance

Via Wolf Files

Throughout the Obamacare debate, President Obama repeatedly promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Now, Gallup reports that from the first quarter of 2010 (when Obama signed Obamacare into law) to the third quarter of this year, 2 percent of American adults lost their employer sponsored health insurance. In other words, about 4.5 million Americans lost their employer-sponsored insurance over a span of just 18 months.

This is not what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had predicted would happen. Rather, the CBO had predicted that Obamacare would increase the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance by now. It had predicted that, under Obamacare, 6 million more Americans would have employer-sponsored insurance in 2011 than in 2010 (see table 4, which shows the CBO’s projected increase of 3 million under (pre-Obamacare) current law and an additional 3 million under Obamacare). So the CBO’s rosy projections for Obamacare (and even these paint a frightening picture) are already proving false.

Famed Comic Book Writer Calls OWS Protesters ‘Louts, Thieves & Rapists’

The legendary comic book writer behind ”300,“ ”Batman: The Dark Knight Returns,“ and ”Sin City“ would likely not call the ”Occupy” protesters in Zuccotti Park and across the country heroes. In a post on his blog last week entitled “Anarchy,“ Frank Miller railed against the ”Occupy“ movement and the protesters he calls ”louts, thieves and rapists.” After beginning the post with “Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense,” Miller went on to write:

“The ‘Occupy’ movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. ‘Occupy’ is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.

‘Occupy’ is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the ‘movement’ – HAH! Some ‘movement’, except if the word ‘bowel’ is attached – is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.”

Miller goes further to acknowledge that “America is at war against a ruthless enemy,“ in reference to ”al-Qaeda and Islamicism,“ and ”In the name of decency, go home to your parents, you losers. Go back to your mommas’ basements and play with your Lords Of Warcraft.” The post brought mixed reactions from fans as over 2800 have commented on the page.


Which Candidate Was Right About Iraq?

Via Nancy

Of all the candidates running for the Republican nomination, only one was right – if not prescient – about the big foreign policy issue of the day, namely, the war in Iraq. I speak of course of Congressman Ron Paul. The whole world now knows, as even the CIA has admitted, that the war was based on a lie; there never were any "weapons of mass destruction" that threatened the U.S.; Saddam Hussein, as evil as he was, posed no threat to America; and he had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Bin Laden in fact hated Hussein because Iraq was a secular society.

Nor does the neocon chant that the terrorists attacked on 9/11 because "they hate our freedoms" make any sense at all. America was much freer decades ago before it became the fascist police state that it is today, and there were no terrorist attacks back then. The truth is that it is the neocons, with their PATRIOT Act, threats to suspend Habeas Corpus (and even the internet), warrantless wiretaps, internet censorship and spying, and their chant that "9/11 changed everything!" (translation: the hell with the Constitution) who are the real enemies of American freedom.

All of the bought-and-paid-for neocon chickenhawks who are running for the Republican nomination, from Newt Gingrich to Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, were and are cheerleaders for endless unconstitutional war in the Middle East. They never, ever, seem to get enough of it. Only Ron Paul has expressed learned intelligence grounded in history and constitutionalism on the issue. Anyone who is interested should read his 2007 book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship.



Via Billy

'60 Minutes' Uncovers Pelosi's Insider Stock Trades

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bought stock in initial public offerings (IPOs) that earned hefty returns while she had access to insider information that would have been illegal for an average citizen to trade with – even though it’s perfectly legal for elected officials, CBS’s "60 Minutes" reported Sunday night.

In a piece relying on data collected from the conservative Hoover Institution, "60 Minutes" revealed that elected officials like Pelosi are exempt from insider trading laws – regulations that carry hefty prison sentences and fines for any other citizen who trades stocks with private information on companies that can affect their stock price.

In the case of elected officials – this secret information ranges from timely details on lucrative federal contracts to legislation that can cause companies’ stocks to rise and fall dramatically.

How do they get away with it? Lawmakers have exempted themselves from the laws that govern every other citizen.

Pelosi, D-Calif., and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs while having access to information directly relating to the companies involved. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies, began making its way through the House.

“Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of $44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House,” Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" reported.

Kroft confronted Pelosi at a regular press conference after she declined an interview.

ZAHAL - Gilboa Assault Rifle

  • The Standard Gilboa was developed with the idea of improving upon shortcomings of other modern rifles.
  • The 7 inch “Shorty” was developed for professionals requiring compact weapons with the fire power of a full carbine.
  • The DMR is a heavily modified Gilboa -series automatic rifle to provided increased accuracy over range, giving military and law enforcement operators greater firepower.
  • The APR™ Assault Pistol Rifle is a revolutionary new firearm designed specifically for combat situations involving law enforcement and military personnel, specifically for CQB.

  • MORE

Brings back similar memories on this side of the Atlantic: Once Upon a Time on the Riviera

Damn, it's a bitch getting old.:)

Taki's Magazine


Once Upon a Time on the Riviera

A recent libel case won by Lady Moore, wife of Sir Roger Moore of James Bond fame, called for my testimony in London, and for once I was happy to oblige. Roger Moore is a friend of very long standing, as is his son Geoffrey, who lives fifty yards away from me in Gstaad. British hacks are notorious for never allowing facts to get in the way of a good story, but in this case the Daily Mail paid dearly for involving the wrong Kiki.

Let’s go back 54 years, when a very young (20) Taki arrived on the French Riviera and was extremely lucky to hook up with the prettiest Swedish girl by far in what Somerset Maugham called that “sunny place for shady people.” Her name was Kiki, she was 16 or 17, and she moved in with me in a tiny room without bath in the Hotel du Cap, made famous by the great F. Scott Fitzgerald as the “Hotel des Etrangers” in Tender is the Night.

“It may sound like an empty life, but it sure was fun.”

After two or three weeks of unbridled passion, all hell broke loose. I opened up Kiki’s bag looking for cigarettes and found a wad of francs worthy of a drug dealer and then some. Under vigorous interrogation, Kiki admitted that it was a gift from an older man, a disgusting individual of unknown origins. Our love affair ended on a sour note, although Kiki went on to marry one of the richest Americans and then take him to the cleaners. I wrote about our ill-fated romance a couple of years ago in the London Spectator. As luck would have it, a gossip columnist read it, put two and two together, and got five. He figured my Kiki was Roger Moore’s Kiki and ran the item, greatly embarrassing the Moores, certain that the two Kikis were one and the same. (I hadn’t revealed Kiki’s surname in the original article.)

When I testified that I met Lady Moore 40 years after my Riviera idyll with Kiki the Swede, it was only a matter of how much Roger and his Kiki would accept for being libeled. (I hope it was in six figures.)

In the meantime, the Hotel du Cap got a lot of good publicity, which is the bad news.

I spent my youth at the Hotel du Cap, having first gone there in 1952 with my parents when it was still owned by the family that had put up with Scott and Zelda’s shenanigans during the Roaring Twenties. For the next 30 years I spent every summer at the hotel and its famed Eden Roc clubhouse. They were probably my happiest years ever, as the hotel was THE place to be back before the nouveau riche scum from the Middle East and the old Soviet Union polluted the place beyond repair or redemption. Visit it and weep. I was there exactly 17 months ago for Naomi Campbell’s fortieth birthday party, thrown by her Russian boyfriend to the tune of a couple million euros. Among 400 guests there were five gentlemen: Leopold Bismarck, Tim Hoare, Nick Scott, Heinrich Fürstenberg, and yours truly. And three ladies: Countess Bismarck, Princess Fürstenberg, and Princess Hanover. (My wife refused to go although my boat was anchored below the hotel.)

Never have I seen so many gangsters and hookers, which is the type the hotel caters to nowadays. The Sella family sold the hotel about 30 years ago to a German group which decided to improve the bottom line. The result was predictable. Nice people cannot afford the hotel’s over-the-top prices. Even if they could, who wants to lie next to disgustingly behaved Russians in the first place? Although the hotel has not changed physically—its neoclassical façade is still surrounded by pined woodland and tennis courts that lead down to the sea—the people have changed, and that’s what makes all the difference. There are no more Dukes of Windsors, Gianni Agnellis, Noel Cowards, Rita Hayworths, Jack Warners, Aly Khans, King Farouks, Joe Kennedys, Gary Coopers, King Alberts of Belgium, Marlene Dietrichs, or Scott Fitzgeralds any more. Not even a Taki.

On a typical day back in the fabulous fifties, I’d wake up around nine, breakfast in the grand terrace facing the sea, then go to the tennis courts for a long hit and good sweat to get rid of the alcohol from the night before. Then it was down to the cabanas, screened by shrubbery from the gaze of upstanding folk who might not approve of monkey business before or immediately after a liquid lunch on the clubhouse terrace. After a long swim in the afternoon and more tennis, there were pre-dinner drinks at the hotel terrace. Then it was time to once again go hunting for women, a popular sport among Riviera regulars. It may sound like an empty life, but it sure was fun. Thanks for nothing, Kiki.