28 July 2009

British Model murdered By Boyfriend

morrison_barnes

Amy Leigh Barnes, a British model who called 999 and named her killer, has some revenge tonight.

Her boyfriend, Ricardo Morrison, was convicted of murdering the girl - but get this. Under British sentencing standards, Morrison faces a maximum of 24 years in jail. He'll be 40ish when released.

How sad but there is a lesson to be learned here. I think it's fucking obvious.

Rot in Prison, Morrison. You obnoxious, good-for-nothing animal...

Queen Michelle - Elitist Snob

Aren't we in the midst of the Great Recession? Isn't this "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?" With so much economic doom and gloom, you'd think that Mr. and Mrs. Obama would be slightly sensitive to over-doing their spending. But no. This is the New Camelot, after all.

The Canadian Free Press (Of course no US newpaper would DARE write a critical article about the Obamas) has a scathing indictment of the erst-while "First Lady" and her outrageous spending habits.

"Miz Michelle" has 20 attendants, at a whopping cost of $1,216,200. And this is just staffing. Don't forget that if the Obamas want to jet to New York for dinner, that little outing cost US Taxpayers $250,000. Michelle wore sneakers to a charity event that cost over $500. The Obamas wanted pizza so they flew a pizza chef in from New Orleans to make 140 pizzas for the Obamas and their staff.

michelle_obama_alfredenuema

These two are a disgrace....incompetent, petty, racial, and elitists through-and-through.

25 July 2009

Wedding Entrance dance

I want to take a detour off the sour world of politics for a moment. We all know by now that this country was sold a bill of goods by electing Obama. He "over-sold" himself on the interview. Now we have an incompetent hack in office who hasn't the foggiest clue on economics, law or military operations.

And this 'post-racial' president can't help but comment about "stupid" cops and how he thinks that black men and minorities are unfairly targeted by law enforcement. It's amazing that guys who are the biggest cheaters, are the first to accuse their significant other of cheating. The biggest racists are the ones out there accusing everyone of being a racist, when in fact, they are the racists and are projecting their own insecurity onto others.

Anyway ---- I digress.

I came across this wedding video posted at YouTube, and I have to confess, it's pretty bad. It's part of a new craze called Wedding Entrance Dances. Apparently it wasn't good enough for the wedding party to just walk up the aisle and stand in support of the couple about to tie the knot.

Now we have to have drunken, sun-glass wearing, post-adolescent fools prancing around the aisle and showing that they're semi-retarded. I'm sure it was some Unitarian type church, headed by a shock-haired lesbian. That'd fit.

The video was shot at a church ceremony in St. Paul, Minnesota. Here's the video:



Just a few points -
* They use Chris Brown's "Forever" as the song in the ceremony. This is the same Chris Brown who beat the living shit out of his girlfriend. So they've got a domestic abuser as the bard to lead them to matrimonial bliss.

* No wonder Minnesotans consistently vote for losers in their elected officials. From pro-wrestler Jesse Ventura to comedian Al Franken, it's painfully obvious that if this wedding represents Minnesota's voting constituency - they've got some problems.

* No body had any particularly special "moves" - they just kinda waddled up the aisle doing some arm and leg movements. Then the erst-while groom comes tumbling out of the mddle of the group and looks like he's lost!

These people should be embarrassed, not celebrated on YouTube. It was just a half-assed stunt to get some internet buzz and to say - "Look at us! Aren't we cheeky, fresh and modern!"

Did they want to celebrate their day in a memorable way? Certainly - everyone wants to remember their wedding day. But these people come off over-acting, and looking pretty ridiculous to boot.

I wonder if they're divorced yet.

21 July 2009

Joe Grillo gets Probation

Former district 025 police officer Joseph Grillo was sentenced today to 2 years probation by Judge Joseph Alesia.

I know that some officers have strong opinions, both ways, on this one. Nobody can discount that Joe was a tremendously effective officer, a hard-working guy and always looked out for his partners. Seems like he maybe looked out "too much" in light of this allegation.

Regardless, probation is better than prison. He's lost his house, cars, property, pension and suffered another heart-attack back in March.

Just a reminder: If you're a cop and you have an inkling that something you're about to do is wrong - stop, think and don't do it.

07 July 2009

Eat the Rich!

The global "climate change" tyrants are up to their old tricks again. Now they're going after "the rich" and, by default, the United States. There is currently no credible evidence that global warming is a long-term event, or that it is even influenced by human activity.

I grew up hearing the oft-repeated line that America has 5% of the world's population, but uses 50% of its resources. First I think that that is hyperbole. But second, how many inventions and surges in scientific breakthroughs come from America? America has brought more boons to the world than any other group or country. That is a fact.

To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries -- including fast-growing economies China and India -- are not required to curb greenhouse pollution.



Full story here.

The media is promoting more and more stories like this in order to give credence to the lie that global warming is a serious environmental issue.

It is absolutely NOT.

The reason that this is being pushed on us is so that the government can get more control over us.

06 July 2009

Inside the mind of The Left

Bernie Ecclestone, the man who controls Formula One auto racing, said Friday that he preferred totalitarian regimes to democracies and praised Adolf Hitler for his ability to "get things done."

Story here.

If you ever wondered why very rich people, like George Soros, are indoctrinated Mercedes Marxists, this story on Ecclestone shines a light into what their philosophical foundations are.

As I've said before it takes Zero effort to be a Liberal. You don't have to read, think, ponder, debate - all you have to do is read a few headlines, tune into Oprah and emote. That's pretty much it.

The Left feeds on ignorance and sloth. It is a pathology within the body politic.

You'll see that Ecclestone's highest value is control. Dictators control. The trivial things that dictators do is really that - picayune.

Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler built the Autobahn. Ceau┼čescu of Romania banned abortions in 1966 because he thought the population of the country should be 25 million, and it was only at 19 million. FDR was a totalitarian who greatly admired Stalin and Hitler. He did everything he could to convert this country to a totalitarian regime. Thankfully he was constrained by the constitution and congress.

When you're a dictator you can do all kinds of cool things. It's your world baby, we just like in it!

People like these will live and prosper in a democracy, and will gladly accept all the rewards that that country offers. But they're very myopic when it comes to honoring the system that delivers all those wonderful rewards.

America, especially, has her 5th Column apparatchiks. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Dodd, Frank and Schumer come to mind immediately. They don't appreciate the value of the constitution because they don't beleive in it.

The constitution limits the power of these elitists. It confines them, it keeps them from pushing an authoritarian agenda onto an unwilling population. It ensures a representative government.



But now we have a president, congress and judiciary who don't support the constitution. They're no longer restrained by the checks and balances. They want bigger government because that is what will guarantee their party's power. Bigger government will be more intrusive and will have control over you. That's why they're pushing for nationalizing healthcare.

Do most people want socialized medicine? No. 77& of surveyed Americans are happy with their present insurance plan. A government run system will be inefficient and will ration care to you and your loved ones.

The Left needs people to be dumb and ignorant. That's why they took over the educational network in this country. Their minions stand in tens of thousands of classrooms across the country and spread their quasi-Marxist rhetoric and give short-shrift to America's greatness.

Conservatism is the only answer - its principles are what has made this country great for 233 years. The farther away we get, the more this country will erode into a cesspool of corruption, nepotism and authoritarianism.

05 July 2009

04 July 2009

Illinois Court Puts More Liability on Police

The courts - this time it's Diethard Beyer v. City of Joliet. The courts have effectively made police officers responsible for events that are beyond their control. Under the Domestic Violence Act, the courts have ruled that police are no longer immune from being held accountable for criminal acts that others may commit. Illinois police officers generally enjoy absolute immunity for failure to provide police protection, prevent the commission of a crime or to make an arrest.

That is now out the window.

So if you're on routine patrol and you cruise down a street and 5 minutes later someone is murdered, it's now on you: You didn't do your job, you didn't stop and listen to the sound of crickets on the block, you didn't drive fast enough to get there in time, you didn't cut paper because both parties were drunk and there were no visible injuries...etc.

Un-fucking-real.....Here's a snippet from the decision.

Trial court erroneously dismissed claim that the shooting death of a Joliet woman by her husband resulted from Joliet police officers' willful and wanton breach of their duties under the state Domestic Violence Act.

The 3d District Appellate Court has reversed a ruling by Will County Judge Edward F. Petka.

On July 20, 2004, Margaret Wilson called the Joliet Police Department several times to report that her husband, David Wilson, had threatened her with physical harm and mentally abused her by reminding her of the presence of guns in the house.

The police responded by visiting the Wilson home but each time they left without investigation or assistance to Margaret. The responding police officers were told that there weapons in the home but chose not to investigate even though they had unrestricted access to the home.

In the early morning hours of July 21, David Wilson shot and killed Margaret Wilson in their home. The administrator of Margaret Wilson's estate filed suit against the City of Joliet and several individual police officers, alleging that the decedent's death was the result of the defendants' willful and wanton breach of their duties under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the trial court granted the motion, finding that "in order to be a protected person under the [statute] a person must obtain an order of protection or take steps to obtain protection under the act."

On appeal, the decedent's estate argued that it had pleaded sufficient facts to establish that the decedent was a protected person under the statute. The appeals court said that Illinois police officers generally enjoy absolute immunity for failure to provide police protection, prevent the commission of a crime or to make an arrest.

However, the court said that in 1986, the General Assembly enacted the Domestic Violence Act, which provides a special-duty exception to governmental immunity ad specifically deals with cases in which public officials fail to protect victims of domestic violence.

Section 305 of the statutes limits law-enforcement liability to willful and wanton conduct, the court said. And the state Supreme Court has held that an injured party can recover under the statute provided that "the injured party can establish that he or she is a person in need of protection under the act, the statutory law enforcement duties owed to him or her were breached by the willful and wanton acts or omissions of law enforcement officers, and such conduct proximately caused plaintiff's injuries," the appeals court said.

The plaintiff contended that the decedent was a "protected person" under the statute even though she didn't have an order of protection. The plaintiff also argued that requiring a victim to obtain an order of protection in order to proceed under the statute is contrary to the express language of the statute. The plaintiff cited section 7, which states that when an officer has reason to believe that a person has been abused, neglected, or exploited by a family member or household member, the officer "shall immediately use all reasonable means to prevent further abuse, neglect or exploitation."

The appeals court agreed with the plaintiff that obtaining an order of protection is not a condition precedent to pursuing a claim under the statute. "Such a requirement would be contrary to the express language of the act and would defeat the legislative intent," the appeals court said.

The appeals court said that the Illinois Supreme Court has made it clear that in order to recover under the statute, a victim must first show he or she was in need of protection. In this case, the appeals court said that the plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts that would invoke the protections of the statute. The factual history of the case showed that the decedent called the police several times and explained the threats made by her husband.

Justice Daniel L. Schmidt wrote the court's opinion with Presiding Justice Mary K. O'Brien and Justice Robert L. Carter concurring. Released June 2.