In an effort to make political hay in the wake of the top kill failure, Republicans and their house PR firm Fixed News have been trying to say that BPs failure to stop the oil leak in the gulf is Barack Obama's failure and that The President is to blame. Well here's a challenge to all those who would seek to do so....an open invitation, if you will, to all of my Republican friends; If you know of anyone in this world who can stop this leak, which was facilitated by WCheney, produce him or her and stop the leak. Otherwise, stop the crap.
I am guessing that none of you, not a one, knows of such a person on this earth, huh?
Perhaps Republicans ought to have thought of that before they advocated for virtually unlimited and nominally regulated offshore drilling at depths of 5000 feet. Ah, but the hypocrisy party has never really believed in environmental protection have they? The hypocrisy party...the party of short term profit at the expense of everything and everyone around them.
So do us all a favor and stop the crap, OK?
We're damn tired of it!
Monday, May 31, 2010
THEY WERE AGAINST IT BEFORE THEY WERE FOR IT
Well here's another fine mess you've gotten us into W.
As toxic crude oil continues to spew into the gulf and into our previously pristine wetlands there are those who, for political reasons, seek to place the blame for this crime against nature at the feet of the President of The United States.
Of course, as we have previously documented in this space it was the previous administration that relaxed the safety standards for deep water coastal drilling Inspector General's Inquiry Faults Regulators (among those for other industries) as part of an overall mindset that government should lighten up on the regulation of private enterprise. After all, the reasoning went, the government never gets anything right and its regulations always delay and add to the cost of doing business.
So, how is that unregulated private sector thingy working out for you? Not so good huh? I suppose the only thing we can be thankful for in this disaster is that it does not involve a nuclear power plant.
The same people who have been reflexively calling for smaller government and lower taxes (on the part of the wealthy) to fund that government, are today screaming for the government to come in and take responsibility for what is almost surely the worst industrial incident the world has known to date.
The nerve of them! Those same people who today decry government as ineffective are the ones who made it so. They spend years dismantling the government and eviscerating it's oversight functions and then predictably, when business under the not so watchful eye of a Republican led government, cuts corners in the quest for short term profits and it leads to disaster they cry for the help of the federal government.
Well, me thinks thou doest protest too much. You can't spend years railing against government regulation of business and then selectively scream about government ineffectiveness when it suits your political purpose. You can't have it both ways. Either you believe that government has a legitimate roll in protecting it's people and our environment against the excesses of the private sector or you don't but you can't have it both ways.
Government, the Republicans were against it before they were for it.
As toxic crude oil continues to spew into the gulf and into our previously pristine wetlands there are those who, for political reasons, seek to place the blame for this crime against nature at the feet of the President of The United States.
Of course, as we have previously documented in this space it was the previous administration that relaxed the safety standards for deep water coastal drilling Inspector General's Inquiry Faults Regulators (among those for other industries) as part of an overall mindset that government should lighten up on the regulation of private enterprise. After all, the reasoning went, the government never gets anything right and its regulations always delay and add to the cost of doing business.
So, how is that unregulated private sector thingy working out for you? Not so good huh? I suppose the only thing we can be thankful for in this disaster is that it does not involve a nuclear power plant.
The same people who have been reflexively calling for smaller government and lower taxes (on the part of the wealthy) to fund that government, are today screaming for the government to come in and take responsibility for what is almost surely the worst industrial incident the world has known to date.
The nerve of them! Those same people who today decry government as ineffective are the ones who made it so. They spend years dismantling the government and eviscerating it's oversight functions and then predictably, when business under the not so watchful eye of a Republican led government, cuts corners in the quest for short term profits and it leads to disaster they cry for the help of the federal government.
Well, me thinks thou doest protest too much. You can't spend years railing against government regulation of business and then selectively scream about government ineffectiveness when it suits your political purpose. You can't have it both ways. Either you believe that government has a legitimate roll in protecting it's people and our environment against the excesses of the private sector or you don't but you can't have it both ways.
Government, the Republicans were against it before they were for it.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
WELCOME TO THE 17TH CENTURY
Rand Paul would like to welcome you all to the 17th century.
With each passing minute it becomes more apparent that this guy is dangerous!
If sanity prevails in Kentucky, which I'll admit is open to question, a Democrat will be elected to the US Senate come November.
After trying unsuccessfully to spin his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Mr. Paul went on today to burnish his extremist credentials.
On Friday he called the Obama administration “un-American” for taking a tough stance with BP over the company’s handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Who should The President take a tough stand with, the fish?
It seems Mr Paul disagrees with The President's insistence that BP be held accountable — and pay — for the oil spill cleanup and damage.
“What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,’ ” Mr. Paul said. “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen.”
His Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, the state attorney general, said on Friday: “Rand Paul apparently has a deeply held conviction that corporations should be allowed to do what they see fit without oversight or accountability.”
Also in the Friday “Good Morning America” interview, Mr. Paul extended his belief that too much blame was being laid at the feet of business, by alluding to the deaths of 29 workers at a Massey coal mine in West Virginia last month. “We had a mining accident that was very tragic,” he said. “Then we come in, and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.”
In other words Mr. Paul's answer to the American people is shit happens, get over it. As we all know, neither accident just happened. Corners were cut and safety standards were watered down by the previous Republican administration in the name of short term corporate profits.
By Friday afternoon, Mr. Paul’s campaign had canceled his scheduled appearance on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program. Apparently even Mr Paul's handlers think he is dangerous.
When it comes to going back to the 17th century the people of Kentucky need to loudly say...
Hell No, We Won't Go!
With each passing minute it becomes more apparent that this guy is dangerous!
If sanity prevails in Kentucky, which I'll admit is open to question, a Democrat will be elected to the US Senate come November.
After trying unsuccessfully to spin his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Mr. Paul went on today to burnish his extremist credentials.
On Friday he called the Obama administration “un-American” for taking a tough stance with BP over the company’s handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Who should The President take a tough stand with, the fish?
It seems Mr Paul disagrees with The President's insistence that BP be held accountable — and pay — for the oil spill cleanup and damage.
“What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,’ ” Mr. Paul said. “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen.”
His Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, the state attorney general, said on Friday: “Rand Paul apparently has a deeply held conviction that corporations should be allowed to do what they see fit without oversight or accountability.”
Also in the Friday “Good Morning America” interview, Mr. Paul extended his belief that too much blame was being laid at the feet of business, by alluding to the deaths of 29 workers at a Massey coal mine in West Virginia last month. “We had a mining accident that was very tragic,” he said. “Then we come in, and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.”
In other words Mr. Paul's answer to the American people is shit happens, get over it. As we all know, neither accident just happened. Corners were cut and safety standards were watered down by the previous Republican administration in the name of short term corporate profits.
By Friday afternoon, Mr. Paul’s campaign had canceled his scheduled appearance on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program. Apparently even Mr Paul's handlers think he is dangerous.
When it comes to going back to the 17th century the people of Kentucky need to loudly say...
Hell No, We Won't Go!
Friday, May 21, 2010
KENTUCKY...BACK IN THE HOOD?
After breaking a barrier that stood for 234 years by electing the first African American as President of the United Sates, something that many Americans never thought they would see in their lifetimes, America earned a newfound admiration throughout the world. At long last, it seemed, we over came. At long last, the promise
of America that all men are created equally and can achieve anything their abilities allowed had been fulfilled.
It was a long 234 years, filled with pain and striving and it could not have happened without a series of important incremental gains. The most important of which was the 1964 Civil Rights Act which for the first time codified Thomas Jefferson's promise into law thereby extending it to all Americans.
Indeed, things have changed dramatically since the days when men in hoods, supported by the wink of the law, could terrorize and murder those that they deemed unworthy. Invariably, such change brings out the most extreme among us, those who would seek to take the country back to its darkest days.
This brings us to the phenomena that is The Tea Party. After the greed and incompetence of the last administration led to the disintegration of 8 million jobs, people became angry and afraid. Can you blame them? But the question must be asked why is that anger directed at Barack Obama? It can not be because he is not doing a good job because clearly, he is doing quite well considering the rubble he was handed upon taking office. No, it has to be something else.
People who are angry and afraid and who are searching for answers are easily led and it seems that the worst among us, aided, abetted and whipped by Fox News have seized control of the tea partiers. What else would explain such misplaced anger?
Early on, Republicans, careening from their losses in the most recent national elections cynically latched onto the nascent Tea Party as a way to gain some traction in the national debate. I don't think that they bargained for what it has come to stand for.
On Thursday, The Tea Party's Rand Paul who not two days earlier won the Republican nomination in Kentucky to run for the U.S. Senate, suggested in a series of television and radio interviews, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was too broad and should not apply to private businesses, such as but not limited to
lunchonettes. A postition so deeply held that he can not bring himself to utter the words that might cause us to think otherwise even though he tried.
The Republican establishment, led by the Senior Senator from the State of Kentucky, who also happens to be the Republican leader in the Senate perhaps recognizing the extreme direction of the Tea Party, even for them, had backed a more moderate, that is to say a mainstream conservative candidate. He lost and now Republicans are left to wonder if they will be able to put the genie back into the bottle or whether Rand Paul will be able to put Kentucky and the nation back in the hood?
of America that all men are created equally and can achieve anything their abilities allowed had been fulfilled.
It was a long 234 years, filled with pain and striving and it could not have happened without a series of important incremental gains. The most important of which was the 1964 Civil Rights Act which for the first time codified Thomas Jefferson's promise into law thereby extending it to all Americans.
Indeed, things have changed dramatically since the days when men in hoods, supported by the wink of the law, could terrorize and murder those that they deemed unworthy. Invariably, such change brings out the most extreme among us, those who would seek to take the country back to its darkest days.
This brings us to the phenomena that is The Tea Party. After the greed and incompetence of the last administration led to the disintegration of 8 million jobs, people became angry and afraid. Can you blame them? But the question must be asked why is that anger directed at Barack Obama? It can not be because he is not doing a good job because clearly, he is doing quite well considering the rubble he was handed upon taking office. No, it has to be something else.
People who are angry and afraid and who are searching for answers are easily led and it seems that the worst among us, aided, abetted and whipped by Fox News have seized control of the tea partiers. What else would explain such misplaced anger?
Early on, Republicans, careening from their losses in the most recent national elections cynically latched onto the nascent Tea Party as a way to gain some traction in the national debate. I don't think that they bargained for what it has come to stand for.
On Thursday, The Tea Party's Rand Paul who not two days earlier won the Republican nomination in Kentucky to run for the U.S. Senate, suggested in a series of television and radio interviews, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was too broad and should not apply to private businesses, such as but not limited to
lunchonettes. A postition so deeply held that he can not bring himself to utter the words that might cause us to think otherwise even though he tried.
The Republican establishment, led by the Senior Senator from the State of Kentucky, who also happens to be the Republican leader in the Senate perhaps recognizing the extreme direction of the Tea Party, even for them, had backed a more moderate, that is to say a mainstream conservative candidate. He lost and now Republicans are left to wonder if they will be able to put the genie back into the bottle or whether Rand Paul will be able to put Kentucky and the nation back in the hood?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
EVERY SINGLE DAY
Every single day Barack Obama should attend a project or visit a business where new jobs are being created. Because for all the demands of the job perhaps the most demanding aspect is keeping it, as well as the congressional majorities that you rely on to move your agenda. The key to keeping both is never forgetting....IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!
People are scared and when people get scared they get angry. No matter that the previous president ran the country into the ground. No matter that 8 million people lost their jobs at the hands of the previous incompetent and corrupt administration. IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!
The President needs to get out there and reassure the American people and show them that jobs are being created and that due to his policies things are getting better. He needs to have a series of fireside chats with the American people and he might as well do it out amongst them focusing on an issue that they are sure to be receptive to, their pocketbooks.
The President needs to do this consistently, every single day and he needs to do it loudly, utilizing all the advantages that the bully pulpit offers.
We count on you Mr. President to keep us safe from corporate water carrying, christian pandering, Republicans who drove this country into the ground and who have turned our politics into a culture war.
It's the economy Mr. President, don't be stupid.
People are scared and when people get scared they get angry. No matter that the previous president ran the country into the ground. No matter that 8 million people lost their jobs at the hands of the previous incompetent and corrupt administration. IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!
The President needs to get out there and reassure the American people and show them that jobs are being created and that due to his policies things are getting better. He needs to have a series of fireside chats with the American people and he might as well do it out amongst them focusing on an issue that they are sure to be receptive to, their pocketbooks.
The President needs to do this consistently, every single day and he needs to do it loudly, utilizing all the advantages that the bully pulpit offers.
We count on you Mr. President to keep us safe from corporate water carrying, christian pandering, Republicans who drove this country into the ground and who have turned our politics into a culture war.
It's the economy Mr. President, don't be stupid.
LAURA BUSH COMES OUT....FINALLY
Laura Bush came out last night on Larry King.
She came out in favor of gay rights and a woman's right to choose. We welcome her to the fight and to what is right. Glad to have her.
Our question is, where was she when it counted? Where was she when as First Lady such a revelation might have actually made a difference? Her public silence on these issues while her husband used them as wedges to split the electorate and pander to the worst among us makes her coming out all the more frustrating.
Where was she while her husband was busy appointing ultra right wing justices who would like nothing better than to reverse Roe v. Wade?
Where was she while gays were being systematically denied their constitutional right to equal protection under the law?
While we welcome her to the fight we must at the same time hold her responsible for aiding and abetting the basest and most cynical elements of our society. Those who would deny others their rights simply because they are different. Those who would deny others their rights simply to win an election.
When asked about the difference between her position and that of her husband she responded "I understand his viewpoint, and he understands mine." It's too bad she did not let the rest of us in on the secret when it might have done some good.
Better late than never Laura. Welcome to the right side of the issues, the left.
She came out in favor of gay rights and a woman's right to choose. We welcome her to the fight and to what is right. Glad to have her.
Our question is, where was she when it counted? Where was she when as First Lady such a revelation might have actually made a difference? Her public silence on these issues while her husband used them as wedges to split the electorate and pander to the worst among us makes her coming out all the more frustrating.
Where was she while her husband was busy appointing ultra right wing justices who would like nothing better than to reverse Roe v. Wade?
Where was she while gays were being systematically denied their constitutional right to equal protection under the law?
While we welcome her to the fight we must at the same time hold her responsible for aiding and abetting the basest and most cynical elements of our society. Those who would deny others their rights simply because they are different. Those who would deny others their rights simply to win an election.
When asked about the difference between her position and that of her husband she responded "I understand his viewpoint, and he understands mine." It's too bad she did not let the rest of us in on the secret when it might have done some good.
Better late than never Laura. Welcome to the right side of the issues, the left.
REPUBLICANS - THE PARTY OF SPILL
News Item: Bush Lifts Offshore Drilling Ban
News Item: Spill Is Now Estimated At One Million Gallons of Oil Per Day...47 Million Gallons and Counting
Live Spill Cam
Live Spill Cam
News Item: Fox News Host Scoffs At Gulf Spill: 'Where Is The Oil?'
I guess Brit can't believe his own lying eyes.
News Item: As Six West Coast Senators Propose Banning Offshore Drilling, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (S.C.) announces his support for continued - and additional - offshore oil drilling.
As oil continues to spew into the Gulf of Mexico at an unprecedented rate, and attempts to stop the flow fail, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) reaffirmed his support for continued - and additional - offshore oil drilling. In a press statement issued late last week, Senator Graham said, "I remain committed to safely expanding offshore drilling because I know oil will be part of our nation's energy plan for years to come."
Safely huh? As in when he supported Bush's weakening of safety standards for offshore oil drilling? Or perhaps it was when he supported Bush's choice of a longtime oil industry lobbyist to be the chief regulator of drilling safety.
Of course, as we are seeing now, it only takes one spill to severely damage our environment, perhaps irreparably. Visit this site to learn more about the scope of the disaster.
Speaking of for years to come:
News Item: Oil Spill Shuts Down 19 Percent of Gulf Fishing As much as 40 percent of America's commercial seafood is harvested from the Gulf of Mexico, and the oil spill is already hurting the industry.
News Item: Seafood testing could last years - The spill "will affect the Gulf, and possibly the entire North American region, for maybe years, if not decades," said Rowan Gould, acting director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. More pessimistic was Harry "Chu Chu" Cheramie, 59, a Louisiana trawler: "That's going to kill our fishing grounds forever."
News Item: Seafood testing could last years - The spill "will affect the Gulf, and possibly the entire North American region, for maybe years, if not decades," said Rowan Gould, acting director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. More pessimistic was Harry "Chu Chu" Cheramie, 59, a Louisiana trawler: "That's going to kill our fishing grounds forever."
Comparing the effects of the spill to Katrina, Randy Adams, 48, a construction worker from Grand Isle Louisiana said: "This is worse than a hurricane. We can leave from a hurricane. This we can't leave from."
So, who will pay the enormous costs in clean up and lost business associated with this disastorous spill? Well, if Republicans have their way, it won't be BP and their big oil brethren.
Republicans for the second time blocked legislation that would increase oil companies' liability for oil spill damages, setting off criticism from Democrats seeking to make BP pay for the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
News Item: Heavy Sludge Oozes into Marshes of Louisiana
News Item: Oil Spill's Economic Impact Spans Country
Government by, for and of big business is not in the public interest. As I have said many times previously, pick an issue and the Republicans are on the wrong side of it as respects what is actually good for our country. The environment is no exception. Republican's have been voting against protecting the environment for at least the last 50 years.
When you take a few steps back and consider the entirety of the situation, Republicans have either facilitated, excused or denied the enormity of the spill.
Indeed they have well earned the title... THE PARTY OF SPILL.
Indeed they have well earned the title... THE PARTY OF SPILL.
And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse....
You don't even want to imagine.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
BUT THE PEOPLE ARE FOR IT
Well of course the people are for it.
For far too long the federal government has refused or been unable to effectively control our borders. Even in the face of a determined enemy in the form of organized terrorists and some nine years after the events of September 11th. It is shameful. A national disgrace. A national failure.
This failure or refusal has happened no matter what party has controlled The White House or the Congress. When you think about it, it is a failure with broad bipartisan support and culpability.
The Arizona immigration law that imperils our national unity is actually a cry for help which should be heeded by our federal government. It is time for the government to do what it takes to effectively control our borders, every inch of them. It is a matter of national security and it must be done.
In these perilous times, it is imperative that we know who enters our country, where they are and how long they are to be permitted to stay.
If you are here illegally you need to leave. If you are arrested for a crime your immigration status should be checked as a matter of course.
If you are going to work in this country you need to be able to prove that you are either a US Citizen or that you are here legally. Employers who hire people who are here illegally need to face both civil and criminal penalties.
At the very least, every person wishing to enter the country who is not a citizen should be required to provide a DNA Sample and wear a GPS bracelet encoded with their DNA profile. You can take it off when you leave. You don't like it? Don't come!
To do the job right, it will take money and lots of it. It is a big undertaking. I wonder how many of the people who are in favor of the Arizona Law would be willing to pay an additional tax to pay the cost of secure borders?
Our borders need to be secured and the message needs to be sent if you are here illegally, its time to leave.
The only problem is that it is not the State of Arizona that should be sending that message. No, that job needs to be handled by our national government on behalf of all Americans.
For far too long the federal government has refused or been unable to effectively control our borders. Even in the face of a determined enemy in the form of organized terrorists and some nine years after the events of September 11th. It is shameful. A national disgrace. A national failure.
This failure or refusal has happened no matter what party has controlled The White House or the Congress. When you think about it, it is a failure with broad bipartisan support and culpability.
The Arizona immigration law that imperils our national unity is actually a cry for help which should be heeded by our federal government. It is time for the government to do what it takes to effectively control our borders, every inch of them. It is a matter of national security and it must be done.
In these perilous times, it is imperative that we know who enters our country, where they are and how long they are to be permitted to stay.
If you are here illegally you need to leave. If you are arrested for a crime your immigration status should be checked as a matter of course.
If you are going to work in this country you need to be able to prove that you are either a US Citizen or that you are here legally. Employers who hire people who are here illegally need to face both civil and criminal penalties.
At the very least, every person wishing to enter the country who is not a citizen should be required to provide a DNA Sample and wear a GPS bracelet encoded with their DNA profile. You can take it off when you leave. You don't like it? Don't come!
To do the job right, it will take money and lots of it. It is a big undertaking. I wonder how many of the people who are in favor of the Arizona Law would be willing to pay an additional tax to pay the cost of secure borders?
Our borders need to be secured and the message needs to be sent if you are here illegally, its time to leave.
The only problem is that it is not the State of Arizona that should be sending that message. No, that job needs to be handled by our national government on behalf of all Americans.
ONE NATION UNDIVIDED?
Arizona's recently enacted law requiring all people, be they American citizens or not, to carry identity papers lest they be jailed, gives rise to the question, are we indeed the UNITED States of America or are we on the road to another civil war? State fighting state, region fighting region?
Our union was formed around a federalist model that entrusted its common defense, among other things, to a national or federal government. In so doing, the founders reasoned, a unified country would be stronger and better able to defend itself than were we thirteen separate entities. The overall idea of course was that in unity there is strength. It was true then and it remains true today. When we stray from that model we are weaker as a nation, The founders were indeed wise.
Comparing the recently enacted Arizona immigration law to those of Nazi Germany and the beginning of the Holocaust, as well as to the internment and deportation of Japanese Americans during World War II, the Los Angels City Council voted today to prohibit all official city travel to Arizona and to prohibit the city from entering into any contract with companies in the state. How many more cities, towns, and states will follow is anybody's guess. Indeed, some already have.
When Arizona enacted its law, it chipped away at the unity that is the historic strength of our nation. Imagine if every state enacted a patchwork of laws on issues that are the purview of the federal government. Now imagine that various local and state governments from around the country, who disagreed with those laws, passed Los Angeles style retaliatory laws to express their disagreement. You can quickly see the corrosive effect that this would have upon the nation. It would only be a matter of time until our country would fall under the weight of so many conflicting laws and the subsequent inevitable hostilities and retaliations.
The founders of this nation were indeed wise. They devised a system of governance that has produced the longest standing, strongest democracy in history. The Arizona law is a threat to that system and thus to our nation as a whole.
Our union was formed around a federalist model that entrusted its common defense, among other things, to a national or federal government. In so doing, the founders reasoned, a unified country would be stronger and better able to defend itself than were we thirteen separate entities. The overall idea of course was that in unity there is strength. It was true then and it remains true today. When we stray from that model we are weaker as a nation, The founders were indeed wise.
Comparing the recently enacted Arizona immigration law to those of Nazi Germany and the beginning of the Holocaust, as well as to the internment and deportation of Japanese Americans during World War II, the Los Angels City Council voted today to prohibit all official city travel to Arizona and to prohibit the city from entering into any contract with companies in the state. How many more cities, towns, and states will follow is anybody's guess. Indeed, some already have.
When Arizona enacted its law, it chipped away at the unity that is the historic strength of our nation. Imagine if every state enacted a patchwork of laws on issues that are the purview of the federal government. Now imagine that various local and state governments from around the country, who disagreed with those laws, passed Los Angeles style retaliatory laws to express their disagreement. You can quickly see the corrosive effect that this would have upon the nation. It would only be a matter of time until our country would fall under the weight of so many conflicting laws and the subsequent inevitable hostilities and retaliations.
The founders of this nation were indeed wise. They devised a system of governance that has produced the longest standing, strongest democracy in history. The Arizona law is a threat to that system and thus to our nation as a whole.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
IT'S OK TO CARRY GUNS INTO OUR AIRPORTS, REALLY?
How could any legislator, at any level, in any place in this country, who is presumably entrusted to maintain public saftey ever vote for a law making it legal to carry even a legally registered concealed weapon into an airport is beyond me.
If you read this and it is not beyond you as well, well then there is something wrong with you too:
Again I ask what is wrong with these people who would vote to allow even American citizens to carry concealed weapons into an airport or any other public place even if they have been legally obtained and registered?
One thing is for certain, something is wrong with them because it is just not right!
If you read this and it is not beyond you as well, well then there is something wrong with you too:
May 5, 2010
Suspect’s Gun Proved Easy to Obtain
By MICHAEL WILSON and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM - NY Times
The mammoth clock-to-wire-to-gasoline-to-propane car bomb that the authorities said Faisal Shahzad hoped would claim many lives in Times Square has been analyzed, diagrammed, prodded and pored over. But just before his arrest Mr. Shahzad had also been equipped with a less eccentric — and yet, more dependably lethal — weapon. And he owned it legally.
It is fearsome looking, a carbine hybrid of pistol and long gun with a mouthful of a name: the Kel-Tec Sub Rifle 2000. Mr. Shahzad bought it, new, in March for about $400. It was found in the car that he drove to Kennedy International Airport on Monday, loaded, with multiple extra clips.
Because it is classified as a rifle, it required no permit, as pistols do in Connecticut. But with its folding stock, hand grip, and appetite for pistol ammunition and not rifle ammunition, the Kelt-Tech was about as close as one could get to a pistol that is not technically one. The authorities have not disclosed, if they have learned, what Mr. Shahzad planned to do with that gun. But some law enforcement experts have surmised that he had it in case he was pulled over.
The Kel-Tec was briefly center stage on Wednesday as New York City Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly addressed U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. He said that Mr. Shahzad bought the gun amid obtaining supplies for the bomb.
Mr. Shahzad — who the authorities have described as bent on taking American lives —made missteps while he was designing and building his weapon of mass destruction, including buying what looks to be the wrong kind of fertilizer. But all along he was in possession of a weapon that could have easily done extreme damage, one rapidly fired round at a time.
It was about two months ago when Mr. Shahzad walked into Valley Firearms in Shelton, Conn., which is situated on a downtown street between beside a tattoo parlor and beneath a karate studio, flying two American flags out front.
Inside were the urban parapets of the trade: metal prison bars behind the windows, glass cases securing the guns. He had not lived in Shelton for nine months, having had lost his home there to foreclosure while on a long trip to Pakistan. For the last month, he had lived 12 miles away, in an apartment in Bridgeport.
“The area’s largest used gun buyer,” as Valley Firearms boasts on its recording to callers to the store.
He made his choice of gun and produced his Connecticut driver’s license. He left for a two week waiting period, and returned March 15, plunking down about $400 not for a used gun, but for a brand new rifle, serial number E7L98, according to a law enforcement official. The gun is packaged in what resembles a pizza box.
The gun was manufactured by Kel-Tec CNC Industries, founded 19 years ago in Cocoa, Fla., which makes semi-automatic pistols, rifles and the Sub 2000, a combination of the two. The gun was designed by George Kellgren, perhaps best known for having designed early versions of the Tec-9 handgun that became a favorite of street criminals and was later banned.
The Kel-Tec gun is about two-and-a-half feet long, but for storage or carrying, the barrel can be folded back over the stock, cutting its length almost in half.
It weighs four pounds unloaded, and has front and rear sights for aiming and a grip like a pistol. The rifle is somewhat unique in that it fires pistol rounds — in this particular gun’s case, 9 millimeter rounds. It fires its rounds as quickly as one can pull the trigger; it is not a machine gun, but fast enough. The number of bullets it holds varies with the size of the magazine. Kel-Tec sells it with 10-round magazines.
It is, in effect, a low-powered rifle. Unlike some rifles, its bullets would not likely penetrate a police officer’s bulletproof vest, a law enforcement official said.
Why buy one?
“Why not just get a pistol if somebody wants a handgun round?” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the case. One theory: “It looks more intimidating than a pistol. It’s an intimidating-looking contraption. It’s black, it has some plastic and polymer — it has that military look, but all it really is is a really big handgun.”
Unlike the Tec-9, it is not frequently used by criminals, the official said.
The manufacturer said the long barrel increases accuracy and range. “The superior precision is also very useful against small or partially covered targets at shorter range,” Kel-Tec said on its web site. “The amount of training to master the SUB-2000 is only a fraction of that required for a handgun.”
A customer service representative who gave only his first name, Bill — company policy so that employees cannot be identified and threatened by someone who wants guns — said the Sub 2000 is good for hunting and target shooting and is typically sold with a 10-round magazine. The company sells 2,000 or 3,000 of them a year, he said.
“There are a number of police departments that use them as rifles, so they can use the same magazines as their sidearms,” he said. “Just keep things simple sometimes.”
Suggested retail price: $390.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, in his testimony on Wednesday before the senate committee, urged that suspects on terrorism watch lists be blocked from buying guns and explosives. “When gun dealers run background checks, should FBI agents have the authority to block sales of guns and explosives to those on the terror watch lists – and deemed to dangerous to fly?” the mayor asked. “I believe strongly that they should.”
Such a matter seems irrelevant in Mr. Shahzad’s case, as he was on no such list in March.
It is unclear whether, in the 50 days Mr. Shahzad was a registered gun owner, he ever once pulled the trigger.
Again I ask what is wrong with these people who would vote to allow even American citizens to carry concealed weapons into an airport or any other public place even if they have been legally obtained and registered?
One thing is for certain, something is wrong with them because it is just not right!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?
News Item May 2010:
This would never happen in New York where hard earned experience and sanity informs our judgement on issues of public safety.
If I ruled the world the people who made this decision would never have been elected in the first place. If I ruled the world there would be less guns in the hands of people not more. If I ruled the world, people would not be permitted to carry concealed weapons anywhere, let alone in an airport. Nothing good can come of it.
What is wrong with these people? Oh I know, they're republicans.
Lawmakers in Georgia have approved a bill that would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons into parts of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and onto public transportation, into parks and recreational areas and into restaurants that serve alcohol.
USA Today reported the airport strongly opposes the bill, which would permit the carrying of firearms in areas not controlled by the federal government, such as terminals, drop off and pick up areas, baggage areas, and parking lots.News Archive July 2002:
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A gunman opened fire Thursday at Los Angeles International Airport while standing in line at the ticket counter of Israel's El Al Airlines, officials said, killing two and wounding four others before an airline security officer shot him dead.So the question needs to be asked, what is wrong with these people? In an age when we are at war with international terrorists bent on killing Americans and causing as much fear and mayhem as possible why are these people in favor of filling the airports with unscreened, armed individuals. Of those individuals, is law enforcement just supposed to guess as to their intentions when they enter the airport?
Authorities identified the gunman as 41-year-old Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who came to the United States from Egypt in 1992 and had been living in Irvine, California, for the last two years.
This would never happen in New York where hard earned experience and sanity informs our judgement on issues of public safety.
If I ruled the world the people who made this decision would never have been elected in the first place. If I ruled the world there would be less guns in the hands of people not more. If I ruled the world, people would not be permitted to carry concealed weapons anywhere, let alone in an airport. Nothing good can come of it.
What is wrong with these people? Oh I know, they're republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
