Feb 19, 2013 Political
Chicago Police Chief Garry McCarthy has blamed everything for the plethora of gun related deaths in his city. He has blamed Sarah Palin and is now blaming the Second Amendment. Yes, the right to keep and bear arms is evidently the problem in Chicago where the right is infringed. You see, in Chicago there are very strict gun control laws that violate the US Constitution.
Yet the city is deluged with gun violence and gun crime.
The reason is obvious; criminals do not obey the law. If there was ever a fine example of how gun bans do not work, Chicago is it. The reality that gun control does not stop gun crime has been debated time and again and is generally pointless since brain dead liberals in the anti gun crowd do not understand common sense.
The same people who use all sorts of illicit drugs (those banned under law) think that laws banning guns will stop people from using them illegally.
The bigger issue here is that the police chief of a major city is expressing his view that part of our Constitution is a problem and that those who follow that Constitution are a threat to public safety.
The real threat to our safety is public servants like McCarthy who are not upholding their oaths. These people are dangerous because they believe it is Ok to ignore the Supreme Law of the Land to push their agenda. People who do this are the very reason we have a Second Amendment. It is in place to protect a preexisting right so that we the people have the means to fight tyranny within their own government.
McCarthy wants guns banned and the Second Amendment ignored so he and other like him can do as they wish and can abuse people at will.
They are dangerous and are a stark reminder of how important the Second Amendment actually is.
McCarthy believes the Second Amendment limits citizens to only owning smooth bore muskets. First of all, the Constitution does not limit citizens; it limits the government (which is why liberals do not like it). Second of all, the Second Amendment does not prescribe any particular type of firearm. Additionally, if McCarthy thinks that the Constitution only applies to items available when it was written then he and his officers need to give up their modern firearms. He needs to stop speaking on TV, the radio and the Internet and limit his communication to the newspapers and the US Mail.
McCarthy, not content with his anti Second Amendment lunacy, also said that judges and legislators should rely on opinion polls when interpreting the Constitution.
I imagine that would only pertain to things that liberals agree with. Public opinion polls showed that a huge majority of people were (and still are) opposed to Obamacare (is it any wonder why?).
What about any opinion polls showing that Obama should be impeached? How about those where people think Obama is not eligible to hold office?
In fact, the majority of people polled support our right to keep and bear arms so McCarthy would be SOL on that issue as well.
People like this are dangerous. He is unable to police his violent city and he is an idiot. He needs to be replaced and Chicago needs to stop violating the Constitution.
But in typical liberal fashion he blames everything that is NOT the cause of the problem.
If Obama had a son..
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 15, 2011 Political
He talks a good game but he does not follow up on what he says and most of what he says never applies to him. The he is Barack Obama and the little king is great when it comes to spelling out rules and talking about doing things better but when it comes to actual practice he fails to follow the rules.
Obama published an Executive Order (13589) that deals with efficiency in government and it lists things that government employees are expected to do to ensure they do not waste taxpayer money. One of those things is to be more prudent in the way business is handled and travel is one of the areas that is specifically mentioned.
Obama wants federal employees (in the Executive Branch, the only one he controls) to travel efficiently, and to use technology if at all possible. That would mean to use teleconferencing for meetings rather than flying around for face to face meetings. Many federal workers (in the Executive Branch) have to certify that the mission cannot be accomplished via technology use before travel will be approved.
One would assume that being efficient in travel would apply to Obama and his family but that does not appear to be the case. Obama is scheduled to head for Hawaii on vacation and it was discussed that his wife and kids would go on without him if he got delayed in DC. It appears as if the first Klingon is unable to wait to get to Hawaii so she will be leaving before her man child husband. This trip will likely cost TAXPAYERS (at least) an additional $100,000.
MeeChelle will have a separate flight that will cost tens of thousands of dollars, she will have her staff and she will have limousines and other equipment that must be flown there. She will also need a security detail though one would suspect she could get by with her bat’leth.
This same thing happened last year and the Obamas cost the TAXPAYERS a great deal of money. This year is more of the same. As Congress argues over some kind of budget to keep government running and prevent a shut down this weekend (which might explain why the Klingon is leaving early) the man child king is allowing TAXPAYER money to be wasted so his wife does not have to wait to get to Hawaii. There are families who would love to have a job let along vacation time and those who do get a vacation are lucky to afford a week off near home so few will have sympathy with people who feel they are entitled to live off the TAXPAYER in first class accommodations in a luxury place like Hawaii.
The liberal morons (but I repeat myself) use to become apoplectic when George W Bush went to his ranch in Crawford Texas. Now they sit silently as their messiah wastes TAXPAYER money on a Hawaiian vacation that incurs extra costs to send his wife early.
But Big Dog, Bush went to his home when he took time off. Why do you deny Obama that same thing?
I don’t. Obama has a house in Chicago Illinois and that is listed as his residence. If he and the first Klingon want to head to Chicago for vacation they are more than welcome to so long as she waits and travels with him.
Remember, the rules do not apply to the elites so Obama ignores them.
November 2012 cannot come quickly enough.
Never surrender, never submit.
A Chicago teen, Charinez Jefferson, was murdered by a gang banger who saw her walking with a member of a rival gang. Gang banger Timothy Jones fired shots at the two and his rival ran from the scene leaving Jefferson to fend for herself (what a real man this guy is).
Jones pointed his gun at Jefferson as she begged for her life explaining that she was pregnant. Jones shot her in the head and then pumped more rounds into her body. She died and her unborn child is in critical condition.
The anti gun nuts in this country will blame the weapon for the crime but the weapon was used by a person who should not have had it (criminals do NOT obey the law) and who should have been in jail. Charinez Jefferson was the victim of a liberal judicial system that refuses to incarcerate felons. Jones has a long rap sheet.
A police source said that Jones was a “stick-up man” well known to area police. At the time of the shooting, Jones was serving 2 years of probation for a 2010 burglary conviction, Dillon said. He also has a “lengthy” juvenile record, including convictions for unlawful use of a weapon, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and burglary. Chicago Tribune
Jones should have been in jail. He was well known to police and had a history of violence, criminal activity and use of weapons. Why was this thug on the street?
He was on the street because of a judicial system that allows judges who live in protected communities to be lenient on people who have shown they are unworthy of freedom.
Charinez Jefferson was murdered and her child is in critical condition because a judge or judges refused to put the animal who eventually murdered her in a cage where he belongs.
And since Chicago has one of the most stringent gun laws in the country, Jefferson and others are not allowed to carry guns for their own protection.
They are prey to people like Jones who refuse to obey the law and who are coddled by the lax judicial system.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 11, 2011 Political
The funny thing about people who love gun control and continually ignore the Second Amendment is that while they do not want us to be able to protect ourselves they are always on board with having their own protection. We have seen several liberals who think that all guns are bad and that people should not be allowed to carry them only to have it revealed that they have permits and carry handguns. Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are two that come to mind. Then there are those like Rosie O’Donnell who don’t want to allow you protection but are wealthy enough to hire armed body guards.
The sleaziest among us are politicians who tell us how safe society is and that we do not need weapons of our own while they enjoy armed protection that we provide. The leaders in Congress have security details and the security for the president is out of this world. One might think that it is necessary and maybe so but why does a president need security in Chicago or in DC? These places have some of the most stringent gun control in the country and yet these people travel with armed men.
We all know why. Gun control does not work and when law abiding citizens are disarmed the only people who have guns are criminals (which makes those of us who can’t afford armed guards, prey).
The Governor of Maryland is one of these morons who says that all is fine and that we need tough gun control (read that as infringing on Second Amendment rights) because it makes society safer. He has a state police detail of about six armed officers who keep him safe.
We pay his salary and we pay for his protection. What makes him better than the rest of us?
The biggest hypocrite is Richard Daley, the recently retired Mayor of Chicago. This moron has been against gun ownership all his life and he has worked very hard to violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The unconstitutional gun laws in Chicago were struck down by the Supreme Court so Daley went to work and set up roadblocks that make it nearly impossible for a resident to get a gun much less carry it. There is no way anyone could call what Chicago does, reasonable.
Daley is retired** and get this. While he does not want the people of Chicago to keep and bear arms he wants an armed protection detail to look out for him. Daley wants a team of armed men paid for by the taxpayers to keep him safe while he has done everything in his power to keep the people of Chicago from being able to protect themselves. He has made them less safe while demanding they pay for his safety.
Now that is first class hypocrisy and it smacks of liberal elitism where this schmuck thinks he is better than the average guy (read this as those who pay his salary and for his protection) and that he deserves better protection than the people who actually pay the salaries of the police officers of the city.
Do you think any average citizen in Chicago could request and get an armed detail to provide a safe environment?
I think the people of Chicago should use whatever legal means are available to keep Daley from getting protection. He should be in the exact same position as everyone else.
He should be just as vulnerable as those whose Constitutional right he has violated.
Perhaps if these politicians were to get a dose of the real world they would wise up.
Perhaps not, especially liberals, but at least without armed protection he has the same chance of being murdered as the next guy.
That, after all, is a level playing field and we all know how much liberals think that all things should be fair and equal for everyone.
Until, of course, to comes to their lives. Then they like things tilted in their favor.
People of Chicago, just say NO.
** Daley leaves office on 17 May
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 26, 2011 Political
Rahm Emanuel is trying to become the Mayor of Chicago so that he can take the place of the retiring thug who is cashing out. One thug will replace another in the nation’s most corrupt city. There is one sticking point and that is, is Emanuel eligible to run?
There are two interpretations of the statute and though I agree with the interpretation that he had to reside in the city for the year prior, there are others who disagree. The court made a compelling argument for the “you must physically live here” interpretation because it is defined separately from the residency requirements of voters.
The statute allows exceptions but it would appear as if Emanuel does not fit into one of the categories, at least as far as the court is concerned.
I am indifferent because I do not live in Chicago. I think that if the law’s definition of residency means you can be out of the state and still be eligible then Emanuel certainly should be allowed to run. He pays taxes there and he votes there so if this is the intent of the law then he has every right to run.
If the meaning of the law is that he had to actually be living there in order to run then he should not be allowed to. It appears as if this was the intent since the rules for voting and the rules for running are spelled out separately and it appears as if the words “reside in” mean that he had to be living there. This is different than having residency.
Many military members maintain their state residency when away serving but they are not residing in the state. States want you to remain a resident so they can tax you while you are away. Be that as it may, there is a difference between residency status and residing in. If you travel overseas you are still a citizen (resident) of the US but you are not residing in the US.
And I think that is the interpretation that the court applied because those terms appear to be spelled out that way.
However, this will ultimately be settled by the courts and if they decide that Emanuel meets the residing in definition then he should be allowed to run.
Of course, this is Chicago and it is likely that Emanuel will be allowed to run even if there is a hundred pages of notes attached to the law saying that he had to actually live there.
As I said, I have no dog in this race. Even though I don’t care for the guy I think that if he meets the criteria then he should be allowed to run.
I also think if they decide he does not then he should not be allowed to run.
And that means he does not get special favors because he is Obama’s buddy or because the people like him.
Then again, who am I kidding. This is Chicago…
Never surrender, never submit.