» Look Who's Mocking Fascist Fear-Mongering Now

One of the arguments we’re hearing in the current debate about gun control might be called the anti-anti-tyranny argument. Coming from liberals, it’s a little rich.

 Some gun-rights supporters say the Second Amendment’s purpose is not merely to protect the right to hunt or defend yourself, but to guard against oppression. “The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons,” writes Kevin Williamson in National Review, “is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions.” Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano likewise argues that the Second Amendment protects “your right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government.”

 The history of the Founding and the language of the rest of the Bill of Rights suggest they have a point. (Though not the whole point. One reason the Founders wanted people to be armed is so they could put down insurrections, not just start them.)

 But many progressives say this is just plain nuts. To Charles Blow of The New York Times, the rise of “so-called patriot groups” who think such things is evidence of “paranoia by people who have lost their grip on the reins of power, and reality.” To Josh Horwitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, it’s part of a dangerously radical “insurrectionist” movement. To Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, the idea that Americans might need weapons to fight a “war with the government” is one of conservatives’ “paranoid fantasies.”

 Paul Waldman of the American Prospect agrees. In a piece for CNN on how “The NRA’s Paranoid Fantasy Flouts Democracy,” he says the conservative media encourage listeners to view the Obama as “the very definition of dictatorship… . [M]any would say that their ‘right’ to own any and every kind of firearm they please is the only thing that guarantees that tyranny won’t come to the United States. Well, guess what: They’re wrong.”

 No doubt the gun-rights group has a fringe element, exemplified by those who think the Sandy Hook massacre was orchestrated as part of a plot to disarm America. But it’s worth pausing to ask: Is it really so outrageous to believe the government of the United States is capable of tyranny?

 Not to Naomi Wolf, it isn’t. Back in 2007, the author and political activist wrote an essay on “Fascism in 10 Easy Steps.” She noted that the leaders of a recent military coup in Thailand had followed certain clear procedures – and she insisted the Bush administration was following those very same procedures. “Beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society,” Wolf warned. “It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable.”

 The essay was widely circulated, and its popularity led Wolf to expand it into a book, titled “The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.” (That young patriot presumably is the good kind of patriot – not the kind who joins “so-called patriot groups.”)

 Wolf had lots of company. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann dedicated a “special comment” to calling Bush a fascist: “You’re a fascist!” he bellowed in his usual understated style. “Get them to print you a T-shirt with ‘fascist’ on it!”

 Not everyone was so emphatic. Robert Paxton, a history professor at Columbia and the author of “Fascism in Action,” conceded during Bush’s first term that “Obviously, the … administration is not a fully fascist regime with a single party, an end to elections and the setting aside of rule of law.” But, he continued, “you can make up a list of similarities and differences.” How very nuanced.

 This sort of talk continued even after Bush left office. In a 2009 piece for the Los Angeles Times, columnist Tim Rutten called for a citizen commission to investigate the administration. “Just how close to the brink of executive tyranny did the United States come in the panic that swept George W. Bush’s administration after 9/11?” he asked. “The answer, it now seems clear, is that we came far closer than even staunch critics of the White House believed.”

 These are not basement conspiracy theorists scribbling in the dark corners of the Internet. They are famous and highly regarded thinkers speaking from respected institutional platforms. And their views were echoed by countless thousands of lesser-known liberals sporting “Bushitler” protest signs and bumper stickers.

 All of which permits only two possible conclusions. The first is that progressives knew even then, deep down, they were peddling wildly implausible paranoid fantasies – just as they accuse right-wing “insurrectionists” of doing now. If so, then they should admit as much.

 The second possibility? Many progressives genuinely believed, only a few years ago, that the United States really did stand in the dusky shadow of a totalitarian nightmare. Yet now they insist that Americans who want to arm against that eventuality are paranoid nutjobs. That might be politically convenient – but it doesn’t make much sense.


On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his ex-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.
b a d c

The Ignorance and Naïveté of “Gun Control”


There are people who should know better, of course. But the seeming majority of gun control advocates are simply oblivious to the necessity of keeping guns in the hands of honest, peaceful individuals. Their exposure to guns begins and ends only with tragedies.

As the Don B. Kates, Jr. quote I posted recently noted: “Gun prohibition is the brainchild of white middle-class liberals who are oblivious to the situation of poor and minority people living in areas where the police have given up on crime control.”

I have engaged in many conversations with gun control advocates during the last few weeks . It turns out that none of them have had any direct exposure to crime. They’ve never had occasion to call 9-1-1. They’ve never feared for their lives. To them, the system works and guns are unnecessary - an opinion borne from literal ignorance. Now, I don’t mean ignorance disparagingly (though in some cases it may be warranted) - I mean ignorance as it is defined: a lack of knowledge or information.

In many of these conversations, in order to provide some perspective, I offered some of my own personal experiences. And in one of these conversations, I was even able to persuade a friend to my position - to the point that he came with me to the range and I joined him in a handgun safety class. Allow me to share some of these personal experiences:

  • Sometime around 1994 or 1995, my neighbor directly across the street arrived home with her kids. As they were walking from the car to the house, a gun-wielding assailant drove up and demanded they head inside together. There is no knowing his intentions. Because she was unarmed, there was no way she could stop him. At this moment, her husband arrived from work, interrupting the assailant. He jumped out of his car to protect his family. As they argued, the aggressor shot my neighbor and drove off. The bullet hit one shoulder, travelled through his chest, and became lodged in his other arm. He survived, somehow, though the bullet had to remain in his arm. They were lucky, all things considered, since it could have turned out much worse. As far as I know, the assailant was never caught.
  • Around 1996 or 1997, I was playing basketball with some friends in a neighbor’s driveway. A couple of guys rolled up and pointed guns at us, demanding everything we had. We complied as best we could. Still, they began to toy with us, relishing the power they held over us. We, naturally, feared for our lives. My neighbor’s older brother saw this from inside the house and, after not getting anyone on 9-1-1 right away, started screaming from inside the house that he was coming out with a gun. This was enough to scare the muggers back into their car and speed away. My neighbor’s brother was bluffing: in reality, he ran out with only a large kitchen knife. Obviously, we were simply lucky that day. They could have easily mowed us down well before any authorities would have arrived. Indeed, the cops didn’t show up until well over an hour later. Even then, they were less interested in the mugging and more interested in whether any of us had drugs. 
  • In 2001, I arrived home late from deejaying on South Beach. At that time, I was living with my grandparents whose house was in a poorer neighborhood but closer to campus. Also living there was my grandmother’s disabled brother, who used a tracheostomy machine for breathing. It was around 3am, and as I approached the house I noticed a brown pick-up truck idling in front my driveway. The guys inside the truck were seemingly scoping out the house. I drove past, just in case these guys were up to no good. I swung around a back street, flipped off my lights, and came around the other side to get a better look without being seen. After a minute, they drove off. I stuck around for another few minutes to make sure they were gone and then drove home. As I was changing, I heard the metal latch to the fence disengage. I flipped off the lights inside the house and ran to the window to get a look. Sure enough, the guys were back: two of them, each holding a gun, were now on the property. One was trying the door to my car, which wasn’t there before, while the other one swung around the side of the house and headed toward the main entrance where my grandparents and grand-uncle were sleeping. I immediately dialed 9-1-1 and turned on all the outside lights. This caught their attention, but they weren’t very deterred. As I explained the situation to the 9-1-1 operator, they slowly returned to their truck and leisurely drove away. I gave a full description of the guys and the pickup truck and the 9-1-1 operator informed me that an officer would be by in a few minutes. 15-20 minutes had gone by without a response, so I simply assumed that they were apprehended nearby or something. With my adrenaline pumping, I couldn’t sleep so I stayed up a bit longer. About ten minutes later - over 30 minutes after calling 9-1-1 - I heard the truck idling again just outside. I quickly jumped up and peered through the blinds - sure enough, the guys were back. I turned on my bedroom light and called 9-1-1 again and explained they had returned and were right outside. During this time, I swung open the blinds to confirm that the guys were still there - but I had forgotten to turn off the lights in my room. They could now see me. In what was one of the longest seconds of my life, the driver pulled his gun up from his lap, pointed it right at me… and fired. I don’t remember their faces, but to this day I still remember the flash of the muzzle. Miraculously, the bullet missed. I think it hit off a roof tile. And yet, despite being on the phone with me while I was getting shot at, the police never arrived that night. 

    About a month later I had plans to be in New York for, among other things, a college music festival. I was staying at the Marriott World Trade Canter. For some reason, I had decided to delay my arrival until September 12. The Marriott World Trade Center was destroyed the day before, on September 11th. Serendipity had saved me again. Obviously, in this instance, a defensive firearm would have been useless to prevent the tragedy (at least on the ground against hijacked airplanes - on the planes themselves, it would have made all the difference in the world) - but this experience having so soon followed being shot at left me shaken. My vulnerability was exposed like a raw nerve. A week or two later, I purchased my first firearm and with it a tiny morsel of peace of mind.
  • In 2004, my cousin drove his Hummer to the bank to withdraw some money from an ATM. A trio of bandits who were staking out the bank figured he must have been wealthy and followed him home. In broad daylight, my cousin was rushed while in his garage by the three masked men with guns. They pistol-whipped him across his head, and yelled at him to get inside. My cousin’s wife and his cleaning lady were inside. His sons were at school, but of course would be back eventually. He knew he had to do something. As he was walking into the house from the garage, he slammed the door against the arm of the man whose gun was against his back. My cousin picked up the dropped gun and shot at the men - hitting two of them - while he himself was shot in the chest and arm. He, too, was lucky: he survived and two of the men were apprehended and convicted.
  • In 2005, there were a string of shootings on Los Angeles freeways. One night, in the midst of this spree, I was driving eastbound on the 101 from the 405. My mother-in-law was in the passenger seat and my wife (girlfriend at the time) was asleep in the backseat. I was in the left-most lane when some clown sped up behind me, flashing his high beams. Annoyed, I changed lanes and let him pass. After he passed, I returned to the faster-moving left lane. The crazy guy slammed on his brakes in front of me, causing me to slam on my brakes hard. After cursing him under my breath, I let him gain some distance again before continuing. Then, he slammed on his brakes again. I swerved to the empty lane on my right to try to bypass the crazy guy and he also swung right to cut me off. I didn’t want any part of this so I just slowed down a bit, hoping he’d get over his little episode. Instead, he swerved back to the left lane and slowed to stay even with me. I turned to look at him, and he pulled up a gun and pointed it at me. I slammed my foot down hard on the brake and turned my steering wheel hard right. I then gunned it onto the right lane to try to make my escape. He was quickly on my tail. I did my best to emulate Jack Bauer and keep some distance between us, even keeping cars between us when I could. With my mother-in-law in a panic and my wife, now awake, screaming - I called 9-1-1 on my cell phone. First, I was put on hold, and then hung up on. I called back and was put on hold again. With the phone to my ear, I kept up the high-speed evasive driving. I knew that exiting the highway would only make the situation more dangerous, with lights and traffic that could make us sitting ducks. Instead, I made use of every bit of horsepower available to me and sped down the highway. The 101 eventually led me to the 134, and I kept going. The guy was still on me, and I was still on hold. After 14 miles on the 134, it became the 210 - and I kept going. Still on hold, I knew I had to make a move - traffic was starting to thin and at any point this guy could start firing even without a clear shot. So I lurched my car over two lanes and onto the shoulder. I sped along the shoulder, darting past cars on my left. He pushed his way onto the shoulder behind me. The approaching exit was my opportunity to basically try something out of an action movie - which was pretty much all the training I’d had in evasive driving maneuvers. I slowed down again just enough for him to be right behind me and then at the last possible moment I jumped in front of the car to my left, across the exit lane, and back onto the highway, just barely squeezing by the exit’s fitch barrels - a move he was unable to emulate which left him speeding onto the exit. I kept driving for miles, making sure I had lost him. Eventually, I got off the freeway and then right back on in the other direction, since I had travelled well past where I lived. When I got off my exit, I circled the neighborhood for a while before going home - keeping an eye out for the crazy guy the whole time. After finally making it home, I plopped down on the sofa drained and exhausted. I still had the phone to my ear, still on hold twenty to thirty minutes past when the “adventure” began. Disgusted, I hung up and I was eventually able to file a report the next day. We were, once again, lucky that nothing worse happened. 
  • On two separate occasions in 2012, there were attempted burglaries of my house while my family and I were home. In both instances I was able to scare them away by simply making my presence known. Due to how recent these events were, and since one of them led to filing a police report, I’d rather not get into further specifics. Needless to say, we feared for our lives and I was thankful I was armed and able to protect my wife and children.

This is not an exhaustive list of when I have felt unsafe, by any stretch. I’ve been in too many fights (in all of them, I was defending myself) - including being jumped by five gang members. I’ve been threatened with knives twice. I’ve had a house and two cars burglarized while no one was present. I’ve had many, many other interactions with police, every single one of them involving them abusing their power or being incompetent (or both). What I’ve tried to share were incidents in which either I feared for my life, or people close to me feared for their lives. Only by sheer luck or providence were worse outcomes avoided. And it is foolish to simply rely on further luck or providence during such encounters in the future.

And my encounters are positively mild. How many thousands of people are assaulted, mugged, raped, or murdered every day? What of the horrific stories that are simply part of daily life in the inner city, where the prohibition of drugs empowers violent criminals and police are just as likely to not show up as they are to find a reason to harass the victims?

But there is one common theme I wish to note: the cops are not fast enough. Everyone has heard the adage: when seconds count, police are minutes away. Well, it’s true: it is simply unfeasible to expect cops to be anywhere in less than a few minutes - and yet a few seconds is all it takes for a crazed madman to commit evil acts.

Indeed, let’s take the recent shooting in Newtown. Did you know that it took the police twenty minutes to respond to the initial 9-1-1 call? Twenty. Minutes. Due to political motivations and outright bias, it’s not something that is commonly reported. After all, to call into question the ability of government officials to protect innocent victims from horrific crime would alter the narrative that more government and less liberty is the ultimate solution. But, indeed, it’s true:

According to the CNN timeline for the Sandy Hook tragedy, “Police and other first responders arrived on scene about 20 minutes after the first calls.” Twenty minutes. Five minutes is forever when violence is underway, but 20 minutes — a third of an hour — means that the “first responders” aren’t likely to do much more than clean up the mess.

So many gun control advocates simply lack this knowledge, this perspective, of the reality that many people face. They lack the understanding of how unhelpful, at best, police are in stopping a crime in progress. They don’t understand that to many, it seems outrageous to seek help from the same people who regularly harass you because of where you are or how you look. Many are unaware of “stop and frisk” policies and profiling. Many are far removed from the war on drug’s battlefield. They are blissfully privileged to be sheltered from the reality that bad people exist, and that state protection cannot be trusted.

This isn’t to say that people who have faced criminals and do live in fearful neighborhoods automatically denounce gun control. Gun control advocates can come from the very same pool of victims that would be made safer by more guns in the hands of good people. But their problem is less of ignorance (though, as two examples, they tend to be unaware of the racist roots of gun control and how every 20th century genocide was against legally disarmed citizens) and more of naïveté. Theirs is primarily a misapplication of logic. These are the people who see first hand how the prohibition of drugs empowers criminals. They see first hand how it is easier for a child to buy a joint than a beer. They see first hand that outlawing substances does nothing to affect their availability, it only makes society more dangerous. And yet either they fail to make the proper connections or they cannot apply the same understanding to guns. Outlawing guns or certain guns or certain capacity magazines will not make them go away - it will just put them further in the hands of criminals.

This truth is evident in “gun-free zones.” History has shown that these areas simply create easy targets: Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Aurora, Newtown - all “gun-free zones.” And what is a gun-free zone but merely a pledge of false hope? As Glenn Reynolds noted recently: “Policies making areas “gun free” provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren’t stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it’s the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law. … Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that [honest people who carry concealed weapons] are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers.”

Gun-free zones are solutions offered by those who cannot be bothered by deep thought. It is naïve to believe that outlawing guns would make them disappear, or even harder for criminals to acquire. Moreover, making greater penalties for simply possessing an illegal firearm only provides incentive to commit heinous acts - if they are facing serious penalties anyway, there is little keeping them from escalating their behavior. And, further, it is foolish to solely entrust your safety to police, whose ultimate priority is their own safety over anyone else’s and who are inherently unable to be timely in responding. 

As I’ve noted before, there are three facts that most gun control advocates are too ignorant or naïve to acknowledge:

Fact: Bad people exist.

Fact: Outlawing guns won’t make them disappear any more than outlawing marijuana or prostitution has made those disappear. Making such laws only ensures that those aforementioned “bad people” are *more* likely to be armed than the non-bad.

Fact: A gun does more to empower the weak than it does to strengthen the strong. In other words: if guns magically disappeared, it would be more harmful to the physically weaker and smaller among us - generally: women, the elderly, etc. - than it would to those who are already big and strong. Bad people will remain, only they will have less resistance.

Guns are equalizers. No longer can someone be attacked simply because he or she is smaller or weaker. A small elderly woman with a gun can take down an assailant of any size. And if the assailant has a gun, no rape whistle or pepper spray or even knife could equal the playing field like a firearm.

Prohibition has never succeeded in eradicating that which was prohibited. The more difficult it is for peaceful, law-abiding individuals to acquire a good, the more the supply of that good falls into the hands of criminals. And someone who is willing to murder is not afraid of committing the much less grievous crime of acquiring an illegal firearm.

The way to mitigate senseless violence like that of Newtown is not to tip the scales in favor of criminals by disarming their victims.

I’d consider giving up the firearms that would protect me, my wife, and my daughters as soon as someone figures out a way to eradicate the earth of rapists, muggers, murderers, and tyrants. 

When statist impulses are used to disarm the sane and peaceful, only the insane and violent will be armed - and fewer will be safe.

(Source: laliberty)

» $25-a-gun sales tax approved in Chicago area - U.S. News

Yeah, because that is totally going to curb the crime rate


Heavily Armed Cop (M-16s) at New York Comic Con Violates Rights to Photo in Public

Why were they there in the first place?! HD
b a d c

Glad nobody was hurt. Police have no suspects, but have identified a “vehicle of interest.” source HD
b a d c

» Maryland Cop Shoots Fleeing, Handcuffed Suspect in the Back


A District Heights police sergeant shot a handcuffed suspect in the back Thursday afternoon, inflicting a serious wound as the man tried to flee, according to authorities, law enforcement officials and family members.

Calvin Kyle, 26, had been pulled over, handcuffed and put in a police cruiser after he was seen riding a stolen motorcycle near County Road and Marlboro Pike in District Heights, law enforcement officials said. But as District Heights Police Sgt. Johnnie Riley attended to other matters, Kyle got out of the cruiser and began to run, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation.

That’s when Riley shot Kyle in the back, the officials said.

Because chasing down a man with his hands cuffed behind his back is just too easy. Instead, make it easier by escalating the situation and attempt to kill him.

» Getting shot and killed by the police is the price we pay to be protected by the police? I respectfully disagree.


The Utah Shooting Sports Council board decries the violence perpetrated by killer Jeff Johnson at the Empire State Building on Aug. 24, and we applaud the courage of the police officers who stopped this killer.

Yet the injury of nine civilians by police bullets is unacceptable. That atrocious count could have been reduced or eliminated had the New York Police Department supplied better initial training to its officers and reinforced it on a regular basis.

Admittedly, Monday-morning quarterbacking is easier than dealing with the pressure of a real-life situation. But close evaluation is needed in this and other shootings because public safety is at risk. Law enforcement must look at what worked and what didn’t, and then make appropriate changes.

Many are defending the cops on this shooting, and certainly some of what they did warrants defense. On the other hand, they shot nine times more innocent people than the assailant did. And any one of those rounds could have been fatal. Already, one victim has filed a claim against the city.

Of the 16 rounds fired by the two officers, three were recovered from the assailant’s body and four passed through it — better than NYPD’s average hit ratio, but not great. According to a 2008 Rand Corporation report, about 70 percent of police-fired rounds in that city go somewhere other than expected, sometimes into buildings, cars or (in this case) innocent bystanders a block or more away.

That’s a terrible hit rate compared to other departments. Depending on the report you look at, NYPD has a department-wide hit ratio of around 10-20 percent.

By comparison, the Los Angeles Police Department reported a 36.47 percent hit ratio for 2008, and that number jumps to nearly 50 percent if you exclude shootings with more than 30 rounds fired.

But even the LAPD hit rate isn’t particularly impressive. I’ve seen reports from some departments that have focused on modernizing their firearms training programs with hit rates in the 75-80 percent range.

The officers at the Empire State Building simply engaged beyond their training level, and people got hurt. And the buck must stop with the top brass.

Read More

My belief on this is pretty straight forward: As a cop, if you can’t hit 90%, you don’t get a gun. End of discussion.

» Cop charged with shooting kiddie porn in elementary school. He has also been charged with possessing assault weapons, explosives, and controlled substances, as well as embezzlement.


Page was taken down. Please see the cached version.

ANDERSON, Calif. -

Court documents outlining an investigation on a Northstate Highway Patrol Officer have left some Anderson parents outraged.

45 year old Gerald “Gary” Harris pleded not guilty Monday morning to two felony counts of possessing child porn, one felony for unauthorized use of a computer, one misdemeanor count for annoying a child and two special allegations.

He’s already pleaded not guilty to possessing assault weapons, explosives, a controlled substance, and embezzlement.

Parents have been calling CHP since this story broke, complaining that Harris was at Meadow Lane Elementary School in Anderson almost every day and was always taking pictures of the students.

The investigation was launched in January when Harris had to have his work laptop fixed. Another officer tried to fix it and reportedly found porn.

The report from CHP investigators says they found numerous flash drives and computer discs during their investigation at his Anderson home.

On one flash drive was photo of a former student in his wife’s second grade class at Meadow Lane. The camera was focused on her private parts and was date stamped September 2010. Investigators tracked the identity of the student and found she now lives in Roseville. The student said she remembered Harris being in the classroom everyday “after lunch and would leave shortly before school let out.”

Investigators found a second flash drive at Harris’ home. It contained more than 100 pictures of child erotica and nudity that were evidence in another CHP case.

The report also mentioned an incident from several years ago when pornography was found on the computer in Mrs. Harris’ classroom. The school’s computer technician asked Mrs. Harris about it. She said she didn’t know where it came from, but, according to the report, speculated it may have come from her husband. The tech reported the incident to the school’s Superintendent.

Parents told me Tuesday afternoon that Harris was always on campus; going on every field trip and helping in the classrooms.

“I am disgusted. I’m outraged. I want to know why we were not notified. From what I understand, [Mrs. Harris] is returning to school this next school year. I don’t want my children around her. I don’t even think I want my children at this school because they’re not protecting our children,” Meadow Lane Elementary parent Misti Hernandez tells us.

Another parent, Michelle Rushing said “I’m irate about the whole situation. I think the whole thing is disgusting and that he never should’ve been allowed in the classroom. I don’t feel safe having my kids go here. My oldest has been moved out of the school already and I’m thinking about pulling my youngest.”

The report also says one parent that called CHP told investigators that her daughter attended an after school program at Meadow Lane. The parent said on several occasions, instead of her daughter being in the after school program building, she would be in Mrs. Harris’ classroom. According to the report, there were times that she was even found alone with Gary Harris while Mrs. Harris was making copies. One particular time, the parent said her daughter was found on Harris’ lap with another female child and nobody else in the classroom.

We reached out to the current Superintendent, Harley North, several times. He didn’t call us back, but did email this statement:”the Cascade Union Elementary School District is very concerned about the charges levied against Mr. Harris and his connection with our students. We have cooperated with law enforcement regarding
this case from the beginning of this investigation and continue to cooperate as requested.”

Monday morning, a judge granted the prosecution’s request that Harris have no contact with anyone under 18, with the exception of family members.

Harris is scheduled to be back in court on September 4th.

I’m done

I feel terrible for the victims of the Colorado shooting, but let’s not blame the Batman movie or guns, mkay?!

Fast and Furious is a cover-up and the left knows it.


There’s no doubt that Fast and Furious should be Obama’s Watergate. And you can bet, if Obama were a Republican, the media would have already shamed him into tendering his resignation. But I won’t be holding my breath for that to happen. In any case, what I find interesting is that so far the left hasn’t come up with anything approaching a reasonable argument in defense of Obama. In fact, most of the “arguments” I’ve heard aren’t really arguments at all. They’re subject changes meant to distract and deflect blame. Here are just a few examples:

  • Rachel Maddow: Fast & Furious is a “Fox News conspiracy”, and a “paranoid delusion.”—That might be true. In which case, Obama should have nothing to hide. Let’s see the documents.
  • Bill Maher: “Republicans don’t care about dead Mexicans.”—Maybe, Bill. But shouldn’t we investigate it? Let’s see the documents.
  • Andrew Cohen: GOP is engaging in “Partisan finger-pointing”—Yeah. Probably. Sadly most things in Washington these days are partisan. But there are hundreds of dead people from this and we should find out what happened. Let’s see the documents.
  • Sheila Jackson Lee: “[Holder] offered everything that chairman Issa wanted.”—Mkay. Then why did Obama invoke executive privilege? There’s obviously something that wasn’t handed over. Let’s see the documents.
  • Chris Matthews: The GOP are racists or, in his words, “ethnic” for going after Holder.—I’m not following your air tight logic there, Chris. But then, who does? Regardless, even if the motive for the investigation is racist, the fact remains that someone in the justice department was responsible for the Fast and Furious screw up and the deaths of hundreds of people. Whether the prosecutors are racists or not is immaterial. Let’s see the documents. (Also see Al Sharpton and the Free Republic collection)
  • Chuck Schumer: “[Fast and Furious] didn’t start with the Obama administration.”—Sorry, Chuck. You’re wrong. As has already been reported, Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious were two vastly different projects and you know it. But, for argument’s sake, let’s pretend they’re identical and that it’s all the fault of Obama’s predecessor. Shouldn’t we investigate it? If it’s true, the left would finally have their chance to legitimately put George Bush in prison! Let’s see the documents.

I could literally have gone on for hours but I think you get the idea.

» Breaking doors and the Constitution


D.C. cops without a search warrant ransack veteran’s home in gun hunt

While Army 1st Sgt. Matthew Corrigan slept inside his Northwest Washington home, Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) response teams were gathering outside. Dozens of SWAT and explosive-ordnance-disposal officers spent hours preparing a full-scale invasion of the residence in the middle of the snowstorm of the century. It was not an operation to protect the public from a terrorist or to stop a crime in progress. It was to rouse a sleeping man over a secondhand report that he might have an unregistered gun.

» Border Patrol Kills 19-Year-Old US Citizen: The young man was shot in the back 3 times as he fled from a traffic stop near the Mexican border; Border Patrol officials gave bad directions to the ambulance carrying her son, delaying medical care


 TUCSON, Ariz. (CN) - A Border Patrol agent shot and killed a teenage U.S. citizen in the back as the young man fled from a traffic stop near the Mexican border, his mother claims in a federal lawsuit.
     Carlos LaMadrid died at a hospital after being shot three times by the unknown agent on March 21, 2011, his mother, Guadalupe Guerrero, says.
     She claims Border Patrol officials gave bad directions to the ambulance carrying her son, delaying medical care.
     ”At the time of the shooting, Mr. LaMadrid was completely defenseless,” the complaint states. “Mr. LaMadrid was in the process of fleeing and climbing a ladder over a fence and had his back turned to the agent. Mr. LaMadrid had no weapon of any kind on or near his person, and he was not threatening the agent or any third party. The shooting was clearly in violation of Mr. LaMadrid’s rights under the United States constitution.”
     The incident began when Douglas police officers got an anonymous tip that a Chevrolet Avalanche, in which LaMadrid, 19, and Jesus Manuel Chino Lino, 17, were riding, was transporting marijuana, according to the complaint.
     Douglas is a border town about a 2-hour drive southeast of Tucson.
     ”Officers with the Douglas Police Department reportedly spotted the alleged Avalanche and began pursuing the vehicle,” the complaint states. “The Avalanche refused to pull over and instead made its way to the border fence separating the Republic of Mexico from the United States.”
     The Avalanche stopped at the border fence and LaMadrid jumped out as Border Patrol agents arrived.
     ”Upon information and belief, the agent and unknown Border Patrol agents had no knowledge of why the Douglas Police Department was in pursuit of the Avalanche or the circumstances which gave rise to the pursuit,” LaMadrid’s mother says.
     Her son ran to a ladder propped against the border fence, but could not get over before the agent shot him at least three times in the back, Guerrero says.
     ”The agent then drew his sidearm and took aim at Mr. LaMadrid who was in the process of climbing the ladder,” the complaint states.
     ”In an appalling use of excessive force, the agent intentionally fired at least three shots at Mr. LaMadrid.”
     Guerrero says that agents handcuffed her son’s hands and feet, dragged him to the back of the patrol vehicle and called for an ambulance.
     ”The ambulance, however, was initially sent to the wrong location thereby delaying its arrival,” Guerrero claims. “Prior to the ambulance’s arrival, law enforcement provided inadequate first aide to Mr. LaMadrid despite the obvious gunshot wounds that Mr. LaMadrid had sustained.”
     With two bullets in his back and one in his thigh, LaMadrid died a short time later at the hospital, Guerrero says.
     She claims her son’s death was part of pattern of unchecked and unreported violence by the Border Patrol.
     ”Ms. Guerrero alleges, upon information and belief, that a significantly higher number of shootings have in fact occurred along the international border between the United States and Mexico, however, many of these shootings and other acts of physical and verbal abuse of Mexican citizens and United States citizens of Mexican descent have gone unreported by United States Border Patrol agents,” the complaint states. “The United States Border Patrol had reason to know of the significant number of unreported incidents and have failed to investigate the information concerning abuses of their agents.”
     Guerrero seeks exemplary damages for violations of her son’s civil rights.

Back to top