Friday, March 30, 2012
College fires cartoonist over Trayvon 'colored boy' drawing
Via Sarah Maid of Albion
The Daily Texan, the student newspaper at the University of Texas, has booted cartoonist Stephanie Eisner two days after her eyebrow-raising illustration of Trayvon Martin created all kinds of controversy. Eisner's cartoon depicted a mother reading a book about Martin to a kid with an unfortunate 'sex-doll' appearance. Anyway, the mom describes Martin as "the handsome, sweet innocent COLORED BOY," a C-word that led to widespread C-riticism of Eisner, the Texan and its staff.
The Daily Texan, the student newspaper at the University of Texas, has booted cartoonist Stephanie Eisner two days after her eyebrow-raising illustration of Trayvon Martin created all kinds of controversy. Eisner's cartoon depicted a mother reading a book about Martin to a kid with an unfortunate 'sex-doll' appearance. Anyway, the mom describes Martin as "the handsome, sweet innocent COLORED BOY," a C-word that led to widespread C-riticism of Eisner, the Texan and its staff.
More @ MSN Now
Useful Idiot of the Month Poll: March 2012
Ladies and gentlemen, it is now time to vote for Useful Idiot of the Month for March 2012. Here are your candidates, as nominated by the readers…
1. Obama’s “hot mike” nominated by Harrison
2. The MSM: Nominated by LD Jackson, and LibertyAtStake
3. Spike Lee: Nominated by Infidel de Manahatta, and KingShamus
4. The GOP, AKA, the Stupid Party: Nominated by Jim at Conservatives on Fire
5. Justice Kennedy: Nominated by Harry
6. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: Nominated byBunkerviille
7. Soledad O’Brien: Nominated by Doug Hagin
Your humble host has some more…
8. Sandra Fluke, for obvious reasons.
9. Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, for not having a plan.
10. Ed Schultz, for being on the union payroll.
11. National Organization for Women President Terry O’Neill, for complaining about Fluke’s treatment, yet ignoring the rape machine that is OWS.
And, here is your poll!
Obama Administration Won’t Prosecute Saudi It Claims Threatened to ‘Blow Up White House’
“federal and local authorities declined criminal prosecution.”
Via Don
The Obama administration says it will not prosecute a Saudi Arabian national who the administration claimed in congressional testimony entered the United States on a student visa and then was arrested after threatening to blow up the White House.
On March 6, top officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security in both written and verbal testimony that DHS had arrested a Saudi national who was “threatening to blow up the White House and the Saudi Arabian Cultural Mission to the United States.”
More @ CNS News
It's all about race now
Roundabout via Billy
If it had been a white teenager who was shot, and a 28-year-old black guy who shot him, the black guy would have been arrested.
So assert those demanding the arrest of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
And they may be right.
Yet if Trayvon had been shot dead by a black neighborhood watch volunteer, Jesse Jackson would not have been in a pulpit in Sanford, Fla., howling that he had been “murdered and martyred.”
Maxine Waters would not be screaming “hate crime.”
Rep. Hank Johnson would not be raging that Trayvon had been “executed.” And ex-Black Panther Bobby Rush would not have been wearing a hoodie in the well of the House.
Which tells you what this whipped-up hysteria is all about.
More @ The American Conservative
Lincoln’s Party of No Compromise
The Republican party was the party of disunion in 1860-1861 and would accept no compromises to save the Union of the Founders. The Crittenden Compromise would have given the North 900,000 of the existing 1,200,000 square miles of territories for their free soil projects; and left the remaining are to be either free or slave-holding States at the option of the voters when the States were admitted to the Union. This peaceful compromise was offered to Lincoln and his party as a measure to avert war, but found rejection as an answer.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Lincoln’s Party of No Compromise:
“Senator [Stephen A.] Douglas, on the 3rd of January, 1861, only three days after the report of the Committee of Thirteen had been submitted, and within hearing if its members, thus expressed himself in the Senate:
“If you of the Republican side are not willing to accept this [a proposition of his own] nor the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky {Mr. Crittenden], pray tell us what you are willing to do? I address the inquiry to Republicans alone, for the reason, that in the Committee of Thirteen, a few days ago, every member from the South, including those from the Cotton States [Messrs. [Robert] Toombs and [Jefferson] Davis, expressed their readiness to accept the proposition of my venerable friend from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden] as a final settlement of the controversy, if tendered and sustained by the Republican members. Hence the sole responsibility of our disagreement, and the only difficulty in the way of amicable adjustment, is with the Republican party.”
Again, on the 2d of March, 1861, Mr. Douglas re-affirmed this important statement. Said he:
“The Senator has said that if the Crittenden proposition could have been passed early in the session, it would have saved all the States except South Carolina. I firmly believe it would. While the Crittenden proposition was not in accordance with my cherished views, I avowed my readiness and eagerness to accept it.”
Hon. [Samuel] S. Cox, for several years an able and eloquent member of Congress from Ohio made the most interesting statement upon this subject:
“The vote on the Crittenden proposition was well defined, but is not so well understood. From the frequency of inquiries since the war as to this latter vote, the people were eager to know upon whom to fix the responsibility of failure. It may as well be stated that all other propositions, whether of the Peace Convention or the Border State project, or the measures of the committees, were comparatively of no moment; for the Crittenden proposition was the only one which could have arrested the [secession] struggle.”
(Life of Jefferson Davis, Frank H. Alfriend, Caxton Publishing House, 1868, pp. 217)
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Lincoln’s Party of No Compromise:
“Senator [Stephen A.] Douglas, on the 3rd of January, 1861, only three days after the report of the Committee of Thirteen had been submitted, and within hearing if its members, thus expressed himself in the Senate:
“If you of the Republican side are not willing to accept this [a proposition of his own] nor the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky {Mr. Crittenden], pray tell us what you are willing to do? I address the inquiry to Republicans alone, for the reason, that in the Committee of Thirteen, a few days ago, every member from the South, including those from the Cotton States [Messrs. [Robert] Toombs and [Jefferson] Davis, expressed their readiness to accept the proposition of my venerable friend from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden] as a final settlement of the controversy, if tendered and sustained by the Republican members. Hence the sole responsibility of our disagreement, and the only difficulty in the way of amicable adjustment, is with the Republican party.”
Again, on the 2d of March, 1861, Mr. Douglas re-affirmed this important statement. Said he:
“The Senator has said that if the Crittenden proposition could have been passed early in the session, it would have saved all the States except South Carolina. I firmly believe it would. While the Crittenden proposition was not in accordance with my cherished views, I avowed my readiness and eagerness to accept it.”
Hon. [Samuel] S. Cox, for several years an able and eloquent member of Congress from Ohio made the most interesting statement upon this subject:
“The vote on the Crittenden proposition was well defined, but is not so well understood. From the frequency of inquiries since the war as to this latter vote, the people were eager to know upon whom to fix the responsibility of failure. It may as well be stated that all other propositions, whether of the Peace Convention or the Border State project, or the measures of the committees, were comparatively of no moment; for the Crittenden proposition was the only one which could have arrested the [secession] struggle.”
(Life of Jefferson Davis, Frank H. Alfriend, Caxton Publishing House, 1868, pp. 217)
Lincoln’s Party of No Compromise
Ex-communist nations expose Obama 'fraud'
Media from former communist nations are once again breaking through the veil of silence surrounding President Obama’s eligibility for office – even when the U.S. media refuse to investigate what is being called the “largest scandal in American history.”
First, it was the Russian news website Pravda.
Then, it was The Voice of Russia – successor of Radio Moscow, the official station of the Soviet Union.
And now it’s the Czech Republic’s Neviditelný pes (The Invisible Dog), a popular news website from Prague, that’s sounding the alarm.
Likewise, Russia’s Pravda has published a second expose on the issue by Dianna Cotter, a senior at American Military University.
Russia’s Pravda: ‘Largest scandal in American history’
More @ WND
Edged Weapon Defense: Is or was the 21-foot rule valid?
Via Survival
For more than 20 years now, a concept called the 21-Foot Rule has been a core component in training officers to defend themselves against edged weapons.
Originating from research by Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller and popularized by the Street Survival Seminar and the seminal instructional video "Surviving Edged Weapons," the "rule" states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet.
The implication, therefore, is that when dealing with an edged-weapon wielder at anything less than 21 feet an officer had better have his gun out and ready to shoot before the offender starts rushing him or else he risks being set upon and injured or killed before he can draw his sidearm and effectively defeat the attack.
Recently a Force Science News member, a deputy sheriff from Texas, suggested that "it's time for a fresh look" at the underlying principles of edged-weapon defense, to see if they are "upheld by fresh research." He observed that "the knife culture is growing, not shrinking," with many people, including the homeless, "carrying significant blades on the street." He noted that compared to scientific findings, "anecdotal evidence is not good enough when an officer is in court defending against a wrongful death claim because he felt he had to shoot some[body] with a knife at 0-dark:30 a.m."
For more than 20 years now, a concept called the 21-Foot Rule has been a core component in training officers to defend themselves against edged weapons.
Originating from research by Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller and popularized by the Street Survival Seminar and the seminal instructional video "Surviving Edged Weapons," the "rule" states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet.
Recently a Force Science News member, a deputy sheriff from Texas, suggested that "it's time for a fresh look" at the underlying principles of edged-weapon defense, to see if they are "upheld by fresh research." He observed that "the knife culture is growing, not shrinking," with many people, including the homeless, "carrying significant blades on the street." He noted that compared to scientific findings, "anecdotal evidence is not good enough when an officer is in court defending against a wrongful death claim because he felt he had to shoot some[body] with a knife at 0-dark:30 a.m."
More @ Police One
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)