Happy Tax Day 2017!

Furguson MO

I was just scanning some news and thinking about stuff before heading out on a beer run (it's been a busy weekend). Then I saw the following picture of Furguson MO.

Well, I'll be damned if it didn't remind me of this publicity still from the original (and only IMHO) Red Dawn...

What's more striking, is that there's even more firepower on the streets of Missouri than there ever was in that fictional little Colorado town.

It's funny, how some folks are surprised by the weaponization of the local police forces in the last ten years - and how they're only just now starting to blink about it. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) stepped up to a microphone and yelled "Told you so!" for about a half an hour the other day. What's extra stupid is that Rand Paul is now in the center of both sides of the discussion. Center.

Hopefully folks will re-examine the policies and the politics that got us to Furguson right now. But I'll go on and keep hoping for that... meantime, when the President of the United States asks why citizens need AR-15's in their homes, we all now have a legitimate answer. Look out your backdoor.

Caption Time

Gun Buy Back OutBid

In an interesting twist, an Austin TX gun buy-back program, the police have been out bid!

"About 40 gun buyers, both independent and otherwise, stood in front of the Austin Police Gun Buyback Event offering CASH for the guns they were about to turn in to the city for food cards. As people rolled up, we approached them with our offers, and paid them hard cash after inspecting the guns to make sure they were operable. (the Police were unbelievably cooperative in the process)"

The author goes on to mention that he got a 9 mm for a fraction of the cost.

Meanwhile, DETROIT GUN ‘BUY BACK’ MAY HELP SOME KILLERS ESCAPE JUSTICE

And this... Sheriff resells criminals’ guns: a look at how murder weapons end up back on the street

Original Source.

Thought you Blasphemer's would be interested in the story.

Don't Tread on Me?

Rand Paul Supporter Stomps Head Of Protester Outside Debate [Click to see the video...]

Do you wonder if this was staged? This is politics, so the only thing that matters is the illusion if legitimacy. The Paul campaign put out a statement. The facts are there are multiple events of apparent violence by both sides. It was reported (reading from the same posting about this incident on Huffington Post) that a Rand Paul supporter (also a woman) was assaulted, but who has times for facts?

Also reported was the fact that the woman was a paid instigator. An actor in the theater of politics.

It's admitted that she was paid to attend multiple events trying to insert herself next to Rand Paul for the purpose of getting some kind of embarrassing photo taken.

It's not all all out of the question that she and others around her were attempting to goad someone into overreacting to her premeditated attempts at creating a controversy. And it's still unclear who the male was - he could just as easily been a provocateur (if they fail to identify him given all the cameras at the event I'll be even more suspicious that that is the case).

The updates had her pressing charges, then later reporting that she was "leaning towards pressing charges".

At least the headline to the Huffington Post has the decency to say "apparent" supporter... but immediate guilt upon Rand Paul directly for a series of events that are as of yet not fully known.

Cui Bono? -The clear beneficiary of the immediate narrative put forth is for the establishment favored incumbent, that just so happens to have been trailing in the polls and faces an anti-incumbent political landscape.

Here's the Huffington post on it. - It's been updated a few times. The protester had a concussion but was okay and released. The police still haven't identified the boot.

However, staged or not, smashing someone's head with one's boot is deplorable and should be prosecuted to the highest extent of the law.

Pilot Tells TSA: No Naked Photos

He says this protest is about protecting everyone's civil liberties.

Here is HIS account of the incident:

October 15, 2010 – My name is Michael Roberts, and I am a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., based in Houston (that is, I still am for the time being). This morning as I attempted to pass through the security line for my commute to work I was denied access to the secured area of the terminal building at Memphis International Airport. I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident. Today, however, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at this checkpoint were using one of the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems that are currently being deployed at airports across the nation. These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people's clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). Travelers refusing this indignity may instead be physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them on their way in what is being touted as an "alternative option" to AIT. The following is a somewhat hastily drafted account of my experience this morning.

As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I've not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: "We got an opt-out!" and also reported the "opt-out" into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had "opted out" of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA's latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job.

Eventually the airport police were summoned. Several officers showed up and we essentially repeated the conversation above. When it became clear that we had reached an impasse, one of the more sensible officers and I agreed that any further conversation would be pointless at this time. I then asked whether I was free to go. I was not. Another officer wanted to see my driver's license. When I asked why, he said they needed information for their report on this "incident" – my name, address, phone number, etc. I recited my information for him, until he asked for my supervisor's name and number at the airline. Why did he need that, I asked. For the report, he answered. I had already given him the primary phone number at my company's headquarters. When I asked him what the Chief Pilot in Houston had to do with any of this, he either refused or was simply unable to provide a meaningful explanation. I chose not to divulge my supervisor's name as I preferred to be the first to inform him of the situation myself. In any event, after a brief huddle with several other officers, my interrogator told me I was free to go.

As I approached the airport exit, however, I was stopped again by a man whom I believe to be the airport police chief, though I can't say for sure. He said I still needed to speak with an investigator who was on his way over. I asked what sort of investigator. A TSA investigator, he said. As I was by this time looking eagerly forward to leaving the airport, I had little patience for the additional vexation. I'd been denied access to my workplace and had no other business keeping me there.

"Am I under arrest?" I asked.

"No, he just needs to ask you some more questions."

"But I was told I'm free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?"

"We just need to hold you here so he can…"

"Hold me in what capacity?" I insisted.

"Detain you while we…"

Okay, so now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility.

We stood there awkwardly, waiting for the investigator while he kept an eye on me. Being chatty by nature, I asked his opinion of what new procedures might be implemented if someday someone were to smuggle an explosive device in his or her rectum or a similar orifice. Ever since would-be terrorist Richard Reid set his shoes on fire, travelers have been required to remove their footwear in the security line. And the TSA has repeatedly attempted to justify these latest measures by citing Northwest flight 253, on which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab scorched his genitalia. Where, then, would the evolution of these policies lead next?

"Do you want them to board your plane?" he asked.

"No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I'm more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society."

"Yeah, I know," he said. And then, to my amazement, he continued, "But somebody's already taken those away."

"Maybe they have," I conceded, watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards.

As a side note, I cannot refrain here from expressing my dismay and heartbreak over a civil servant's personal resignation to the loss of civil liberty among the people by whom he is employed to protect and serve. If he no longer affirms the rights and freedom of his fellow citizens, one can only wonder exactly what he has in view as the purpose of his profession.

The TSA investigator arrived and asked for my account of the situation. I explained that the agents weren't allowing me to pass through the checkpoint. He told me he had been advised that I was refusing security screening, to which I replied that I had willingly walked through the metal detector with no alarms, the same way I always do when commuting to work. He then briefed me on the recent screening policy changes and, apparently confused, asked whether they would be a problem for me. I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty.

His reply: "That's irrelevant."

It wasn't irrelevant to me. We continued briefly in the conversation until I recognized that we were essentially repeating the same discussion I'd already had with the other officers and agents standing by. With that realization, I told him I did not wish to keep going around and around with them and asked whether he had anything else to say to me. Yes, he said he did, marching indignantly over to a table nearby with an air as though he were about to do something drastic.

"I need to get your information for my report," he demanded.

"The officer over there just took my information for his report. I'm sure you could just get it from him."

"No, I have to document everything separately and send it to TSOC. That's the Transportation Security Operations Center where we report…"

"I'm familiar with TSOC," I assured him. "In fact, I've actually taught the TSA mandated security portion of our training program at the airline."

"Well, if you're an instructor, then you should know better," he barked.

"Really? What do you mean I 'should know better'? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?"

"I'm not saying you've done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility."

"Understood. I've been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that's what it's come to now, I don't want to enter the facility that badly."

Finishing up, he asked me to confirm that I had been offered secondary screening as an alternative "option" to ATS, and that I had refused it. I confirmed. Then he asked whether I'd "had words" with any of the agents. I asked what he meant by that and he said he wanted to know whether there had been "any exchange of words." I told him that yes, we spoke. He then turned to the crowd of officers and asked whether I had been abusive toward any of them when they wanted to create images of my naked body and touch me in an unwelcome manner. I didn't hear what they said in reply, but he returned and finally told me I was free to leave the airport.

As it turned out, they did reach the chief pilot's office in Houston before I was able to. Shortly after I got home, my boss called and said they had been contacted by the TSA. I suppose my employment status at this point can best be described as on hold.

It's probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged. This took place today (now yesterday, when I wrote all this down), 15 October 2010. Anyone who reads this is welcome to contact me for confirmation of the details or any additional information I can provide. The dialog above is quoted according to my best recollection, without embellishment or significant alteration except for the sake of clarity. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for legal counsel – preferably a firm with a libertarian bent and experience resisting this kind of tyrannical madness. This is not a left or right, red or blue state issue. The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don't let it be taken from us without a fight.

Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

Michael S. Roberts

Unfortunately, since people would rather give up their liberties for the "sense" of security -- Mr. Roberts may have lost his job in vain. Now if he had pulled the escape hatch and grabbed some beers on the way out, more people would be aware of the pilot's heroics and potential sacrifice for the rest of us.

Double Standard in Gun Raid

Louisiana man gets five years for shooting two deputies during no-knock drug raid. He says he thought they were burglars, and actually called 911 during the raid.

“That’s something you have in Vietnam, not inside your house,’’ the judge told Henry. “We’re not in a war here. Seems like we are.’’

Your honor - it was the police that didn't follow the rules in the Constitution - not the accused.

Also, your honor - a Mosin Nagant isn't exactly a 'rare' weapon...

Jay-Z Wanted by Miami P-D.

This is what The Miami Police Department's website looked like: you are being warned about the criminal activities of the notorious violent gang leader Jay-Z, gang member Jay-Z, and some other guys. The streets aren't safe.

(ala Gawker)

PS - If you hire a graphic designer in their 20's to make your home page look like Grand Theft Auto - make sure they're not lifting photos from the internet. That's grand theft copyright infringement.

Rights? What Rights?

A US DOJ investigation has found that a large number of FBI agents and supervisors in several offices found to have cheated while taking a test about surveillance policies and civil rights.

Well, that pretty much sums it up into a neat little package, doesn't it?

I suppose cheating on the surveillance test ought to win you an accommodation for original thinking?

"You have the right to... ahhhhh... huh huh..."

"Boner! You have a right to a boner! huhuhuh huh! Boooinng!"

"Shut up, Beavis. Yeah, you have the right to shut up, or something."

Wrigley Bomber

A 22-year-old Chicago man was charged by federal prosecutors with plotting to detonate a bomb near Wrigley Field, home to the Chicago Cubs Major League Baseball team.

Sami Samir Hassoun, who is identified in a statement by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a Lebanese-born Chicago resident, was arrested yesterday by members of the local Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Hassoun is charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and with trying to destroy real property using an explosive, according to court papers. He is due to make his initial court appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Cox in Chicago today, according to Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Hassoun early yesterday [Sunday?] morning planted an inert device given to him by an FBI informant, which he was told was a bomb, in a trashcan south of Wrigley Field, according to the government. Prosecutors alleged that he intended to injure people frequenting neighborhood bars and clubs, according to a complaint filed at the federal courthouse.

Wait, wasn't Dave Mathews playing Wrigley?

And isn't the FBI giving him a bomb to play with some kind of baiting?

Upon hearing the story, Hassoun wanted changes in City Hall. Hmmm... that's not how that works, Sir.

Gun Control Advocates to Daley: STFU

Of all places... out of San Francisco:

Chicago mayor’s comments wound gun-control advocacy
By: Gregory Kane June 8, 2010

America’s gun-control proponents might want to consider shooting (pun intended) this memo to Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley.

“Dear Mayor Daley: Please shut up. You ain’t helping us.”

Is there anyone doing more damage for advocates of gun control than Daley? The man is a walking billboard for right-to-carry laws. Anyone needing proof of that might want to read the statements he made in the wake of an 80-year-old Chicago man fatally shooting a career criminal who invaded his home.

The background story goes like this:

The elderly man is a Korean War veteran who bought a handgun after three thugs robbed him at gunpoint in his home in late 2009. Chicago police would not reveal this elderly hero’s name, but my late older sister had a nickname she would give any old-timer she ran across: Pop Bucket.

For the purposes of this story, we’ll simply call the Chicago man — who defended his life, family and home in defiance of Daley’s tyranny — Pistol Pop Bucket. In late May, Anthony Nelson broke into Pistol Pop’s home. According to news reports, Nelson had a criminal history that included prison stints for drug and weapon convictions.

Nelson and Daley, before the incident, probably had little in common other than protoplasm and the firm conviction that Pistol Pop wouldn’t have a handgun in his home, because the city of Chicago bans them. Nelson got his rude and final awakening after he fired at Pistol Pop and missed. Pistol Pop returned fire, fatally wounding Nelson.

Daley has yet to get his awakening. In fact, he’s as stubbornly anti-handgun as ever. Listen to his comments about the Pistol Pop-Nelson affair, taken from the Chicago Sun-Times:

“Daley said that he ‘understands the frustration’ that prompted an 80-year-old robbery victim to purchase a handgun that he used this week to kill a home intruder.

“He still believes that ... access to guns kills far more people than it saves.”

There are a couple of direct Daley quotes in the Sun-Times story, and believe me, they’re gems:

“Criminals have far more access to guns today than in the history of this country, and that is frightening to America. You cannot live in America as the Wild West.

“It’s an issue that most people are afraid to talk about. It’s an issue that, politically, is incorrect. You’ll defeat your career. But if you firmly believe that people should have access to guns at all times, then you have a totally different society.”

Oh, indeed we would, Mr. Mayor. And that society would simply be called “a safer one.” Notice that Daley failed to mention that if the state of Illinois had simply done its job and kept Nelson behind bars, Pistol Pop wouldn’t have had to shoot him. But which political party recently adopted the mantra that convicts are simply society’s latest victims?

That would be Daley’s party.

Here’s Daley’s final quote, and it’s another lulu:

“Access to guns will destroy America faster than any other war. Take Europe. Take Japan and other countries that don’t have the access to guns. They don’t have the amount of killings.”

For the sake of the Pistol Pop Buckets of their city, Chicagoans need to take this pathetic excuse for a mayor and retire him from office.

Examiner columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer-nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to Sudan.

Revenge Served Cold

Brian McCrary found the perfect venue to gripe about a $90 speeding ticket when he went to the Bluff City Police Department’s website, saw that its domain name was about to expire, and bought it right out from under the city’s nose.

Now that McCrary is the proud owner of the site, http://www.bluffcitypd.com, the Gray, Tenn., computer network designer has been using it to post links about speed cameras – like the one on U.S. Highway 11E that caught him – and how people don’t like them.

“It’s kind of surprising that they’d just let it lapse like that,” McCrary said, adding that the new site has logged 1,200 unique visitors since he took it over May 22. “I figured they would be aware [it was about to expire] and renew it on their own.”

Read more

Saturday Morning Cartoons: Deputy Dog

Deputy Dog has to evict Herman the Hermit.

Less Miranda

SCOTUS takes away more of your 5th Amendment rights, waters down Miranda some more.

The Supreme Court ruled that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations. That's right...you must speak your right to silence.

Let me ask, does that mean if you speak, you're giving up your right to silence?

Seems the SCOTUS just gave the police more power and a free pass to badger a suspect?

What the SCOTUS said is, that you have every right to keep remaining silent as long as you want, but the police can keep questioning you until you tell them that you are choosing to remain silent according to your Miranda rights. The case that they were listening to involved a guy who stayed silent for 3 hours and then finally answered a question in a way that incriminated him, and his claim was that they should have interpreted his original silence as invoking his rights. You know, that whole, "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" part. Frankly, the case should have been based on this point of contention, not whether or not he specifically told them he was going to be silent. Of course it wasn't, and will have unintended over reaching consequences.

All I know, is I plan on carrying my Miranda rights on my attorney's business card moving forward. Then I can either mime that I'm evoking my rights, or I can just hand them the card.

Open Up!

Addicted to the War on Drugs

After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives. Yet, drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske is admitting defeat.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

Mr. Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.

But he's still increasing spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget. Creatin' jobs in the DEA?

Kerlikowske, who coordinates all federal anti-drug policies, says it will take time for the spending to match the rhetoric.

"Nothing happens overnight," he said. "We've never worked the drug problem holistically. We'll arrest the drug dealer, but we leave the addiction." So we're addicted to the War on Drugs?

Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.

"Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune."

The Office of National Drug Control Policy says about 330 tons of cocaine, 20 tons of heroin and 110 tons of methamphetamine are sold in the United States every year — almost all of it brought in across the borders. Even more marijuana is sold, but it's hard to know how much of that is grown domestically, including vast fields run by Mexican drug cartels in U.S. national parks.

The dealers who are caught have overwhelmed justice systems in the United States and elsewhere. U.S. prosecutors declined to file charges in 7,482 drug cases last year, most because they simply didn't have the time. That's about one out of every four drug cases.

The $320 billion annual global drug industry now accounts for 1 percent of all commerce on the planet.

A full 10 percent of Mexico's economy is built on drug proceeds — $25 billion smuggled in from the United States every year, of which 25 cents of each $100 smuggled is seized at the border. Thus there's no incentive for the kind of financial reform that could tame the cartels.

"For every drug dealer you put in jail or kill, there's a line up to replace him because the money is just so good," says Walter McCay, who heads the non-profit Center for Professional Police Certification in Mexico City.

McCay is one of the 13,000 members of Medford, Mass.-based Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops, judges, prosecutors, prison wardens and others who want to legalize and regulate all drugs.

A decade ago, no politician who wanted to keep his job would breathe a word about legalization, but a consensus is growing across the country that at least marijuana will someday be regulated and sold like tobacco and alcohol.

California voters decide in November whether to legalize marijuana, and South Dakota will vote this fall on whether to allow medical uses of marijuana, already permitted in California and 13 other states. The Obama administration says it won't target marijuana dispensaries if they comply with state laws.

The full story is here

Immigrants, legal and not

That's great and all, but before I give you a Taco Bell Choco Taco Ice Cream Dessert, let me just say that this whole thing isn't about LEGAL immigration, but in fact - ILLEGAL immigration. I cannot stand by when illegals are referred to as immigrants; It's downright insulting to those individuals that waited and followed the rules... including millions of folks ancestors who played by the rules and also the folks from your country who had to wait six or seven years to be granted legal status.

And frankly, I'm getting sick of the debate about what's going on in AZ, especially by people who haven't read the bill or cared to follow what's been going on there for years, without any action by ineffectual leadership.

But, but, you can get deported for "looking reasonably suspicious".

But you have to break the law first... I suggest you read the actual law and quit quoting journalists who never read it prior to formulating an opinion on it.

Now of course if Rosco P. Coltraine in Phoenix tails you until you perform your typical rolling stop, or have a Mexican flag blocking your rear windshield -- yeah, he's going to take advantage of that and find a legal reason to interact with you. If, after your minor traffic stop, you've come into the country illegally, well, Jésus, you're going to have to go back home.

And this also applies to Polish, and Eastern Europeans, and folks who 'accidentally' over stay a work or academic visa.

Now, the Pew Hispanic Center notes that while the number of legal immigrants (including LPRs, refugees, and asylees) arriving has not varied substantially since the 1980s, the number of illegal aliens has increased dramatically and, since the mid 1990s, has surpassed the number of legal immigrants.

Time Square Close Call

A suspected attempted bomb left an SUV containing what police called "explosive elements" in Times Square, as the heart of New York City was packed with theater-goers and tourists.

"This is a bomb. This is a car bomb. A crude device that includes gasoline, propane and is wired together," NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said.

"There were explosive elements, including powder, gasoline, propane and some kind of electrical wires attached to a clock," Browne said. "No motive has been identified."

Browne said no one was in custody, but police were checking security cameras to see if they could identify a possible suspect.

A mounted police officer noticed a smoking box in the back of the vehicle, a Nissan Pathfinder that was parked in the vicinity of the intersection of 45th Street and 7th Avenue, at around 6:30 p.m., police said.

The New York Police Department's bomb squad was called in, and the back window of the SUV was broken out. Police sent in a robot to determine what was in the vehicle.

Inside the SUV, investigators found three propane cylinders, two five-gallon jerry cans of gasoline, a canister of powder, electrical components and timing device, police officials said.

Though police on the scene said the motive for the suspected attempted fire-bombing was unknown, but they described the incident as "the real deal."

The mounted officer should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor, and everyone should be more diligent.

Police Fill Budget Hole, er, Saftey Record

Virginia State Police Help With Budget Crunch, er Safety Record... yeah, Safety that's the Ticket!

A regularly scheduled Virginia ticketing blitz has generated 120,977 traffic citations since 2006.

A story that comes to us from our friends at TheNewspaper.com, should come as absolutely no surprise to the regular readers of Blasphemes. Yes, there's a budget shortfall in Virginia. Yes, the State Police are leaned on - nay, ordered - to fill the State coffers with ticky-tack moving violations in an attempt to further bleed their citizenry. Should Virginia drivers be more careful? Yes, especially knowing that their State Police are nothing more than a profit center for their State Capital. Bonus, there's Federal money mingled in with this story. The federally funded ticketing blitz in the state of Virginia landed a total of 6996 traffic tickets last weekend. The blitz, dubbed "Operation Air, Land and Speed" coincided with frantic efforts by state officials to close a$2.2 billion budget deficit. Supervisors ordered state troopers to saturate Interstates 81 and 95 to issue as many tickets as humanly possible over the space of two days. [All emphasis added by Cap'n]

"The safety of Virginia's highways begins the minute a vehicle is put in 'drive,'" Virginia State Police Superintendent W. Steven Flaherty said in a statement. "Those split second decisions to choose not to drive drunk, to choose to wear a seat belt and to choose not to speed or drive aggressively really do make a difference in preventing and/or surviving a crash." Funny, he didn't mention crazy deficit spending by the Statehouse?

Officers had no trouble delivering the requested number of speeding tickets with a total of 3536 ordinary speeding citations written. In addition, another 717 "reckless driving" tickets were filed, although these most often are simple speeding tickets that happen to carry a fine of up to $2500. Driving as little as 10 to 15 MPH over the limit can qualify for this enhanced punishment. On the other end of the scale, some 310 tickets were handed to drivers who either forgot to wear their seatbelts or made a choice not to do so.

Activists with the National Motorists Association pointed out that enforcement efforts may have concentrated on areas where speed limits are expected to rise to 70 MPH following Governor Bob McDonnell's signature on legislation raising the state's maximum speed limit (view law). This would mean a significant number of tickets were issued for conduct that will be perfectly legal in a matter of months. The group also indicated that state police tactics may run afoul of state law.

"All officers making arrests incident to the enforcement of this title shall be paid fixed salaries for their services and shall have no interest in, nor be permitted by law to accept the benefit of, any fine or fee resulting from the arrest or conviction of an offender against any provision of this title," Virginia Code Section 46.2-102 states.

Under the federal grant application process, state officials explained that they would pay officers overtime -- at least one-and-a-half times their normal salary -- to participate. This special reward for ticketing operation participants appears to violate the spirit of state law.

Since 2006, a total of twenty-three ticketing blitzes have taken place, generating 120,977 traffic tickets.

Thus helping to close the wound of overspending.

Note to our readers, if you plan on going anywhere near Virginia, wear your seat belt - and please slow down - they're counting on you to pay their bills.

Rights Cannot be Negotiated Away Over Beer

Professor Gates drinking a beer at the White House talkin' about racial issues in America with the racist cop who arrested him in his home. What a country.

"We hit it off right from the beginning. When he’s not arresting you, Sergeant Crowley is a really likable guy." Said Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. during the get-together over beer at the White House.

It isn't about race. -- It's about authority.
The cop HAD to arrest him, to save face and authority in the community. Right?

NO. This isn't about race. It shouldn't have been anyway. It should have been about the police and the state's right to enter his house legally. They did not. Gates had the right to tell the cop to take a hike - or come back with a warrant. Period.

There is absolutely no legal requirement to be polite in the defense of the right of being the sovereign of his own home and privacy. And such rights cannot be negotiated away over beer.

Professor Gates should have taken his stand on the Bill of Rights and not on his epidermis or that of the arresting officer, and, if he didn't have the presence of mind to do so, that needn't inhibit the rest of us.

Chris Hitchens

i.e. Professor Gate's mistake was making about race (His epidermis was showing) not about his Constitutional Rights.

So, it's about race. The race card. Police brutality, authority, the 60's, the post-race president, health care derailed...

Too much has been said about the Blue Moon, Red Stripe and Budweiser beer being served tonight at the White House.

Why Budweiser? Not something I think of sipping while talking about racism.

You see, a few years back Rev. Jackson led a boycott against Budweiser, denouncing the company for discrimination. TV crews lit up as he poured Bud onto the street with a sneer, pronouncing, "This Bud is a dud!"

But magically Budweiser was no longer racist once his sons were given the exclusive Budweiser distributorship for the North Side of Chicago. Then, Bud was not a dud. Bud had experienced a teachable moment, and Bud passed the test.

I wonder if the rest of us will.

Welcome to Chicago: USA.