First time visitor? Learn more.

My response to those who claim it is a ‘human rights violation’ to protest mosques.

by Delectable ( 195 Comments › )
Filed under Free Speech, Islam at July 23rd, 2010 - 4:30 pm

I wrote the following in response to a terribly misguided post, written by Jeffrey Imm, of the group Responsible for Equality and Liberty (R.E.A.L.). A related post was linked to (and praised) by a certain husky pony-tailed blogger, which should tell you all you need to know about it! To boil it down, Mr. Imm believes that it is a ‘human rights violation’ to protest religious institutions, including those run by the Muslim Brotherhood. So he, in response, affirmatively defends the right of Muslims (including extremist Muslims, such as the Muslim Brotherhood) to worship wherever they want, including at Ground Zero. Below is an email I wrote in response. Please use the content in this email as helpful information whenever these topics come up with friends, colleagues, and/or family.

———————

To R.E.A.L.,

You are seeking to deny the legitimate moral and constitutional right that I and others have to protesting hate mosques being in our neighborhoods.
 
I have the first amendment right to protest, including protesting religious institutions. The problem is not that SIOA, Westboro Baptist Church, or MAS (the Muslim American Society, an organization that is considered a Muslim Brotherhood front group) protests a synagogue, mosque, or church. “Holy places” are not beyond reproach, and there is just as much a right to protest a church, synagogue, and/or mosque as there is a right to protest a community center. This is simple and basic American constitutional law that you (as a former FBI agent) were sworn to uphold.
 
Certainly, no one has the right to use intimidation tactics to block a mosque that include violence and/or threats of violence. I never said otherwise (and no one of merit would). However, I have every right to lobby a public official, or private individuals, and express displeasure about a new church, mosque, and/or synagogue being built. This is a basic American right that I enjoy as a citizen of this country. Yet you oppose any and all protests against mosques – even peaceful ones using no intimidation tactics.
 
When al-Awda/Code Pink/MAS/Adalah/etc protests outside synagogues and/or Jewish events (as they have done), I never think that the mere act of their protesting outside a house of worship is itself violative of human rights and decency. If in fact Judaism were a human rights violating faith, then perhaps Jews would deserve to be picketed! (but obviously, since the opposite is true, al-Awda/Code Pink/MAS/Adalah/etc are the haters) No, my problem with these organizations is the message found within their protests. In contradistinction, you appear to believe that simply protesting a house of worship is ipso facto evidence of a “human rights violation” (and/or hate speech) taking place. That is not only absurd and offensive, is the sort of reasoning that ultimately advocates on behalf of blasphemy laws.

This is not about whether or not the government is or should banning the building of a new mosque/synagogue/church. No – that is a separate matter altogether (and oddly enough, we may be in agreement on that matter).

The problem in China, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, et. al., is not one of protests of churches and/or synagogues. It is that the governments themselves ban churches/synagogues, and/or that the citizens themselves are violent towards certain religious and ethnic groups.

In fact, I believe that the USA needs to expand the definition of “terrorist organization” to include the Muslim Brotherhood and MAS. This would be most accurate, in light of Steve Emerson’s extensive work (as well as the body of evidence uncovered in the Holy Land Foundation trial), and then apply those laws when/if MAS wants to open a new mosque. But until then, I don’t think there is a way of writing a law that could survive constitutional protection that would be narrowly tailored enough to simply block MAS from opening a mosque, simply due to the fact that it is MAS, without then preventing me from building a synagogue. (Don’t believe me? Check out Geert Wilders’s trial in Holland for “hate speech,” to see how hate speech laws can go awry.) If you want to stop a mosque, you can do so legitimately due to zoning concerns and/or the loudness of the Shahada (call to prayer five times a day). However, if the zoning checks out, I believe you are really out of luck if you seek to have the government prevent a mosque from being built.

However, it is ludicrous to claim that somehow when Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer/SIOA protest a mosque, this is leading us down the path of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. No, it is R.E.A.L. that is leading us down the path of China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc, by claiming that SIOA and others should be condemned (and/or prevented) for simply exercising their first amendment right to lobby and protest mosques.

This is about the right of individuals to protest a religious institution, which you impliedly – from all you have written in the past few weeks – believe they do not deserve.

After all, Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer, and SIOA are not the government. They have no ability to prevent a mosque from being allowed in one place or another. What they are doing is ultimately lobbying to prevent future mosque building – which is their right. If you have a problem with the message they have (i.e., if you disagree that MAS is a bad organization, or that Islam is a bad religion), then feel free to explain why you disagree with them. Otherwise, even Dove Church has the right to say “Islam is of the Devil,” just as Westboro Baptist Church has the right to say “Judaism is of the devil.” And I have that same right to say that Westboro Baptist Church and Dove Church are hateful institutions, due to the messages they convey. It’s called a marketplace of ideas and freedom of speech – something I thought R.E.A.L. stood for.
 
In fact, I thought R.E.A.L. stood for human rights, consistency, and the constitution. However, your abject rejection of freedom of speech shows that R.E.A.L. is not consistent in support for universal human rights.
 
I am disappointed with what you have turned R.E.A.L. into. This is no longer a human rights organization when it does not stand for basic freedom of speech.
Rodan Update: In related news, a massive blow to the Islamic Imperialist Colonization of America has been dealt.
The board of trustees of a Staten Island Catholic Church have rejected the controversial sale of a church building to a Muslim group looking to open a mosque.
 
The collapse of the deal – which would have transferred the vacant convent of St. Margaret Mary Church to the Muslim American Society for $750,000 – came amid a national controversy over efforts to construct a mosque near Ground Zero.
Americans finally have stood up and said no to Islamic Imperialism!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

195 Responses to “My response to those who claim it is a ‘human rights violation’ to protest mosques.”
( jump to bottom )

  1. snork
    1 | July 23, 2010 4:34 pm

    To boil it down, Mr. Imm believes that it is a ‘human rights violation’ to protest religious institutions, including those run by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    I’ll bet you he was whistling a different tune when the Catholic pedophile priest issue was the topic of discussion.


  2. buzzsawmonkey
    2 | July 23, 2010 4:35 pm

    Wake Up, Little Jewsies
    —apologies to the Everly Brothers and “Wake Up, Little Susie”

    Wake up, little Jewsies, wake up
    Wake up, little Jewsies, wake up
    While you’ve been sound asleep,
    Political attentions have creeped
    Talk of what was lost back in the Holocaust
    And everyone falls asleep
    Wake up, little Jewsies
    Wake up, little Jewsies

    Well, antisemitism’s the oldest hatred
    It comes back—what did you expect?
    How you gonna defend yourself
    Against the “politically correct?”
    Wake up, little Jewsies
    Wake up, little Jewsies

    Well, I know that this time you really dreamed and hoped
    At long last you weren’t the automatic scapegoat
    Wake up, little Jewsies
    Wake up, little Jewsies
    No, nothing has changed

    Wake up, little Jewsies, wake up
    Wake up, little Jewsies, wake up
    You expect the world to be fair,
    But for injustices nobody cares
    And instead they buy the flotilla lies
    Of Khalidi, Dohrn and Bill Ayers
    Wake up, little Jewsies
    Wake up, little Jewsies

    Well, antisemitism’s the oldest hatred
    It comes back—what did you expect?
    How you gonna defend yourself
    Against the “politically correct?”
    Wake up, little Jewsies
    Wake up, little Jewsies


  3. mjazz
    3 | July 23, 2010 4:35 pm

    If this goes through Americans will be seen as weak, and it will be proof that they can use our own system against us.


  4. 4 | July 23, 2010 4:36 pm

    This is ultimately a freedom of speech issue. A human rights violation is not taking place when you protest a religious institution, simply because it is a religious institution. And hate speech is only hate speech if it is gratuitous, false, and/or sets out only to enflame anger. Saying that MAS is simply the Muslim Brotherhood, and that a mosque will only increase the influence of the Brotherhood in America…is TRUE! Truth clearly cannot be hate speech.


  5. livefreeor die
    5 | July 23, 2010 4:39 pm

    Good article.


  6. snork
    6 | July 23, 2010 4:41 pm

    To boil it down, Mr. Imm believes that it is a ‘human rights violation’ to protest religious institutions, including those run by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    As Buzzsawmonkey has pointed out dozens of times, “human rights” is a red herring used to deny civil rights. People have a civil right, granted by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, to protest. No one has a “human right” to stop them.

    Human rights, if the term ever meant anything useful and honest, is now but a cynical tool.


  7. buzzsawmonkey
    7 | July 23, 2010 4:42 pm

    There is no place in this country for “human rights.” None.

    “Human rights” are “rights” that are gifts from the government, grantable or revocable at will. Our Declaration, our Constitution, and our tradition decree that we have liberty—which means that we can do as we will, except insofar as the government absolutely must transgress on our personal liberty to keep the necessary public order—and the purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to limit the powers of government and to give us protection from and redress against the government should the government transgress (as all governments do) and exceed the powers granted to it.

    There is no place whatsoever in this structure for “human rights.” We do not look to the government for our rights; we look to our rights to protect ourselves from the government.

    Nobody who argues from a “human rights” perspective can be regarded as understanding the unique American form of government, or what rights American citizens have.


  8. coldwarrior
    8 | July 23, 2010 4:42 pm

    thanks delectable. the muzz and their fellow travelers have to be stopped.

    this would be a great place to start.


  9. mjazz
    9 | July 23, 2010 4:43 pm

    If they have a right to build their stupid mosques then we have a right to evangelize them without getting thrown in jail and having video equipment confiscated.


  10. 10 | July 23, 2010 4:45 pm

    Delectable wrote:

    This is ultimately a freedom of speech issue. A human rights violation is not taking place when you protest a religious institution, simply because it is a religious institution. And hate speech is only hate speech if it is gratuitous, false, and/or sets out only to enflame anger. Saying that MAS is simply the Muslim Brotherhood, and that a mosque will only increase the influence of the Brotherhood in America…is TRUE! Truth clearly cannot be hate speech.

    Oh, that is soooo it… Off to the William Ayer’s Memorial Community Re-education and Patriotic American Elimination Facility with you…


  11. 11 | July 23, 2010 4:46 pm

    mjazz wrote:

    If they have a right to build their stupid mosques then we have a right to evangelize them without getting thrown in jail and having video equipment confiscated.

    Nope… Go join Delectable at the William Ayer’s Memorial Community Re-education and Patriotic American Elimination Facility…


  12. coldwarrior
    12 | July 23, 2010 4:47 pm

    free speech for me, but not for thee, sez the muzz and their supporters.


  13. buzzsawmonkey
    13 | July 23, 2010 4:47 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    free speech for me, but not for thee, sez the muzz and their supporters.

    Just like Mad King Yertle, who has decreed to his posters that he will “Muzzle ‘em for the Muslims.”


  14. snork
    14 | July 23, 2010 4:48 pm

    mjazz wrote:

    If they have a right to build their stupid mosques then we have a right to evangelize them without getting thrown in jail and having video equipment confiscated.

    Same basic issue: their “human rights” trump our civil rights. this is not only wrong, it’s illegal.


  15. coldwarrior
    15 | July 23, 2010 4:48 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    noooo! no the WAMCRePAEF!


  16. snork
    16 | July 23, 2010 4:50 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Just like Mad King Yertle, who has decreed to his posters that he will “Muzzle ‘em for the Muslims.”

    Uh-oh. You referred to a piece of canine anatomy in the same sentence as a holy follower of The Prophet™. Off to the elimination camp with you.


  17. coldwarrior
    17 | July 23, 2010 4:50 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    free speech for me, but not for thee, sez the muzz and their supporters.
    Just like Mad King Yertle, who has decreed to his posters that he will “Muzzle ‘em for the Muslims.”

    islam is not compatible with our constitution and traditions.


  18. buzzsawmonkey
    18 | July 23, 2010 4:52 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    islam is not compatible with our constitution and traditions.

    Nor are “human rights”—regardless of the interest group demanding them.


  19. 19 | July 23, 2010 4:53 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:
    islam is not compatible with our constitution and traditions.

    Even if that is so, that is not the point here. Islam could be a perfectly peaceful religion (say, like Buddhism), and yet a “human rights organization” would be remiss to write that a protest of a new mosque is a “human rights violation.”

    This is not about human rights, even if Islam were the most peaceful religion on earth. It’s about our civil right to protest, which Buzzsawmonkey so eloquently explained.


  20. 20 | July 23, 2010 4:54 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    islam is not compatible with our constitution and traditions

    Sure it is, Just ask our emanate Constitutional Scholar and Chief (Pig Piss be upon him) Obama, the US Constitution is after all a suicide pact…


  21. coldwarrior
    21 | July 23, 2010 4:56 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    @ Delectable:

    no doubt. i certainly agree.

    i’m gonna bet that if the catholic church were the ones being protested, there would crickets form the left

    islam is a political movement. it is not a religion.


  22. 22 | July 23, 2010 4:57 pm

    Delectable wrote:

    which Buzzsawmonkey so eloquently explained.

    Which is why Buzzsawmonkey’s next job is going to be as a front door greater at the William Ayer’s Memorial Community Re-education and Patriotic American Elimination Facility…


  23. mjazz
    23 | July 23, 2010 4:57 pm

    That case in Dearborn is a perfect example of how they would trample our rights given the opportunity. Suppose a firebomb crashes through your window and the muslim fire department takes two hours to arrive at the scene? You know, maybe you wrote a letter to the editor critical of something islamic. Don’t think it can’t happen here.
    Outsiders might read this and think I’m nuts or paranoid, but this Christian maid in Pakistan got struck by her employer every time she refused to denounce Christ and when her mother tried to intervene, they set her on fire. These people are creeps. If 9/11 didn’t wake us up, what will?


  24. buzzsawmonkey
    24 | July 23, 2010 4:58 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    Remember that the Ground Zero Mosque is not the only thing currently being sold as “human rights”; healthcare, same-sex marriage, mortgage guarantees, etc., etc.


  25. buzzsawmonkey
    25 | July 23, 2010 4:59 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    Which is why Buzzsawmonkey’s next job is going to be as a front door greater at the William Ayer’s Memorial Community Re-education and Patriotic American Elimination Facility…

    Hey, it’s a job. Have you seen the latest figures?


  26. coldwarrior
    26 | July 23, 2010 5:01 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    too many think the UN declaration of human rights trumps the constitution.


  27. snork
    27 | July 23, 2010 5:01 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Hey, it’s a job. Have you seen the latest figures?

    You know the old Russian joke. “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us”. That’s our wonderful future under 100% state ownership.


  28. 28 | July 23, 2010 5:08 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    Which is why Buzzsawmonkey’s next job is going to be as a front door greater at the William Ayer’s Memorial Community Re-education and Patriotic American Elimination Facility…
    Hey, it’s a job. Have you seen the latest figures?

    ROTFLMAO… I’ll be lucky to have the job holding your soap bucket as you wash the doors…


  29. buzzsawmonkey
    29 | July 23, 2010 5:09 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    too many think the UN declaration of human rights trumps the constitution.

    The UN “Declaration of Human Rights” is a feeble feint to try and convince despotisms to occasionally go easy on their repressed subjects. It has nothing whatever to do with us.


  30. coldwarrior
    30 | July 23, 2010 5:10 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    try and convince despotisms to occasionally go easy on their repressed subjects. It has nothing whatever to do with us.

    they way this govt is going…


  31. 31 | July 23, 2010 5:10 pm

    Man Glen Beck is on a serious tear today… “Ever see that movie the Stand?” According to Glen, that’s where we are today…


  32. Robert Spencer
    32 | July 23, 2010 5:11 pm

    Bravo. You have ably exposed Jeffrey Imm’s self-contradiction.

    One small point: it’s “Geller,” not “Gellar.”


  33. 33 | July 23, 2010 5:12 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Too true. The founding fathers didn’t even want rights enumerated in the Constitution because those rights come from God, not government. The first ten amendments were added in order to get the Constitution ratified. Good thing too, IMHO.


  34. 34 | July 23, 2010 5:13 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    Not quite. Obama hasn’t gotten to Las Vegas yet….


  35. 35 | July 23, 2010 5:13 pm

    Robert Spencer wrote:

    Bravo. You have ably exposed Jeffrey Imm’s self-contradiction.
    One small point: it’s “Geller,” not “Gellar.”

    Are you by chance the Robert Spencer from Jihad-Watch? If so, it is genuinely an honor to see you here sir…


  36. coldwarrior
    36 | July 23, 2010 5:14 pm

    Robert Spencer wrote:

    Bravo. You have ably exposed Jeffrey Imm’s self-contradiction.
    One small point: it’s “Geller,” not “Gellar.”

    and good afternoon to you.


  37. buzzsawmonkey
    37 | July 23, 2010 5:16 pm

    Rancher wrote:

    Too true. The founding fathers didn’t even want rights enumerated in the Constitution because those rights come from God, not government. The first ten amendments were added in order to get the Constitution ratified. Good thing too, IMHO.

    Had our rights against the government not been secured in the Bill of Rights, we’d have been in much deeper excrement long before Obama.


  38. coldwarrior
    38 | July 23, 2010 5:17 pm

    Rancher wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Too true. The founding fathers didn’t even want rights enumerated in the Constitution because those rights come from God, not government. The first ten amendments were added in order to get the Constitution ratified. Good thing too, IMHO.

    yeah, great call by those guys…they knew that govts could get evil real quick if there were no stops in place.


  39. 39 | July 23, 2010 5:21 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Had our rights against the government not been secured in the Bill of Rights, we’d have been in much deeper excrement long before Obama.

    No kidding. Obama feels that the Constitution is flawed because it says what the government can’t do instead of what it should do. Like provide healthcare and other “human rights”.


  40. 40 | July 23, 2010 5:21 pm

    @ Rancher:

    There was a lot of debate about the Bill of Rights. One side felt that if you didn’t have written restrictions on Government, then Government would grow to control nearly everything. The other side felt that if you enumerated the restrictions on the Government, then Government would grow as though those were the only restrictions on government. As it turns out, both sides were right. Look at how much trouble it has been to put any meaningful restrictions on the Government’s ability to restrict the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Despite the plain wording of the Second Amendment, it took over two hundred years to put any break on the Government’s ability to restrict individual rights, and even now we have barely started to defend this fundamental right. But imagine if there wasn’t a Second Amendment! We’d be well and truly screwed. Even though it should be obvious to anyone who has studied history that there is not only a fundamental right to self-defense, but that that right must encompass defense against a rogue State, there can be no doubt that without the Second Amendment there would be no right to keep and bear arms respected by this government. As is, it will be interesting to see if the Court ever protects it as strongly as the unenumerated right to abortion. Even with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, so much of what we unthinkingly refer to as the “Rule of Law” is arbitrary and capricious.


  41. 41 | July 23, 2010 5:22 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    they knew that govts could get evil real quick if there were no stops in place.

    What they knew from personal experience was that government cannot be trusted to not act in their own best interests even when their best interests conflict with the best interests of those being governed.


  42. coldwarrior
    42 | July 23, 2010 5:27 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    i always wondered why the 2nd amendment isnt as vociferously defended by certain types as the 1st amendment?

    (rhetorical)


  43. 43 | July 23, 2010 5:29 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Speaking of the Second Amendment, whatever happened to those Guardsmen that were forcibly rounding up people’s guns after Katrina?


  44. vapig
    44 | July 23, 2010 5:32 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Boy, howdy, has anti-semitism made a comeback! You should see the yahoo chats – Europeans and muzz all over the world populate that site with the most hateful stuff imaginable – all pretending to be Americans. It’s clear to me they really fear the US-Israel connection and are trying to sever it. It doesn’t matter that the government is doing a bangup job there – they know the heart of the American PEOPLE are WITH Israel and they fear that!

    One of you folks posted a link to a ad firm in California, hired by the UAE, to smear Israel. I want you to know I gave that link to a friend of mine who is a lawyer, who has passed that information to “those” who could be helpful in either exposing or halting these people altogether.


  45. 45 | July 23, 2010 5:33 pm

    Rancher wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Speaking of the Second Amendment, whatever happened to those Guardsmen that were forcibly rounding up people’s guns after Katrina?

    Obama probably hired them to run the BAFT…


  46. 46 | July 23, 2010 5:33 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    Rancher wrote:
    @ Iron Fist:
    Speaking of the Second Amendment, whatever happened to those Guardsmen that were forcibly rounding up people’s guns after Katrina?

    Obama probably hired them to run the BAFT…

    Errr BATF…


  47. taxfreekiller
    47 | July 23, 2010 5:34 pm

    Of some note:

    The commie Democrats and the MSM took the side of the VC and NVA back in the Vietnam war time, they will side with anyone who is anti-American. They are what they are and will always be, traitors.

    Their siding with islamic ones of terror is not a suprise to me.


  48. coldwarrior
    48 | July 23, 2010 5:35 pm

    @ vapig:

    heh…good move. the thread of lawyers is a fine tool.


  49. taxfreekiller
    49 | July 23, 2010 5:37 pm

    Father Time,,,is now working more for U.S. than them. Each day more of the old 1960′s commies bite the “dust to dust” thingey.@ taxfreekiller:


  50. vapig
    50 | July 23, 2010 5:38 pm

    Delectable wrote:

    This is ultimately a freedom of speech issue. A human rights violation is not taking place when you protest a religious institution, simply because it is a religious institution. And hate speech is only hate speech if it is gratuitous, false, and/or sets out only to enflame anger. Saying that MAS is simply the Muslim Brotherhood, and that a mosque will only increase the influence of the Brotherhood in America…is TRUE! Truth clearly cannot be hate speech.

    Thank you for the article and letter, Delectable. I haved to disagree with your definition of “hate speech” though. I really don’t care how hateful someones speech is – it should be protected under our 1st Amendment. Speech that everyone agrees with doesn’t need protection – it’s the objectinable that should be protected and exposed to light so people can make up their own minds.

    Once you (and our government has already started down this road) label speech as hateful (mean?) then everything can be deemed hateful and banned with the full force of the law behind it. I also feel the same way about “hatecrime laws.” Crimes are already mean, hateful and ILLEGAL without tacking on extra gratuitous time because the criminal either said something to or their crime was against one of the protected classes of people. Fact is, we shouldn’t have pretoected classes of people!


  51. lobo91
    51 | July 23, 2010 5:38 pm

    Rancher wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Speaking of the Second Amendment, whatever happened to those Guardsmen that were forcibly rounding up people’s guns after Katrina?

    Nothing happened to them.

    The city was successfully sued, however. They’ve basically ignored the verdict, and most of the guns are still sitting in cargo containers rusting away even today.


  52. 52 | July 23, 2010 5:38 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    They are laying the groundwork for that. McDonald defines the Second Amendment as a “fundamental” right. If the Second Amendment doesn’t deserve the same level of protection as the First, why not? If it does deserve such protection, it is difficult to see much of any gun control actually being Constitutional. If we look at Roe v. Wade as a sweeping precedent, it becomes almost impossible to see Constitutional restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. If 12 year old girls have a right to an abortion without even informing their parents of the decision that they have made (or the need for such a decision at all), how can the court uphold that you must be 21 to purchase a pistol? After all, it is impossible to deny that an abortion stops a beating heart. No one is saying that you have an unlimited right to kill people with your guns. Just that as long as you don’t illegally kill anyone, they have no right to tell you what kind of gun you may own.

    That seems reasonable to me…


  53. 53 | July 23, 2010 5:41 pm

    For the children present and of the future…licence journaljizzers and humanities chairs now…before they murder the Republic any further


  54. coldwarrior
    54 | July 23, 2010 5:41 pm

    @ taxfreekiller:
    @ taxfreekiller:

    the triumph of death is unstoppable, even with all that botox…


  55. coldwarrior
    55 | July 23, 2010 5:42 pm

    @ vapig:

    yeah…the hate speech/crime stuff is no good. too slippery is that slope

    crime is crime.


  56. vapig
    56 | July 23, 2010 5:43 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    Man Glen Beck is on a serious tear today… “Ever see that movie the Stand?” According to Glen, that’s where we are today…

    I chose the old lady!


  57. 57 | July 23, 2010 5:47 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Instapundit had an interview with a Congresscritter (Republican, of course, but I’m not sure which branch) who said that he would be interested in legislation on the order of the Civil Rights Act to protect the Second Amendment rights of citizens from cities like Chicago. That would be cool, but I’d settle for them repealing the NFA and ’68 GCA. I don’t know that they could get it through, and Obama would probably veto it if they did right now, but it would be interesting to watch the Democrats squirm if they tried, wouldn’t it? A lot of the Class of 2006 gave lip service to the Second Amendnment when they were running. Make them actually vote on the issue. Do so early and often. Being pro-Second Amendment (and really pro-Second Amendment) won’t cost the Republicans any significant amount of votes, and those would be more than made up for by people who would turn out to vote for peopel who actually were defending their rights.


  58. vapig
    58 | July 23, 2010 5:48 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    Rancher wrote:
    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Too true. The founding fathers didn’t even want rights enumerated in the Constitution because those rights come from God, not government. The first ten amendments were added in order to get the Constitution ratified. Good thing too, IMHO.
    yeah, great call by those guys…they knew that govts could get evil real quick if there were no stops in place.

    LOL! Yeah – there was two schools of thought even back then. The “heads in the clouds guys” who thought everyone was inherantly good and given liberty would be good little angels towards ona another – and those who believed in original sin and that people could turn into evil selfish oafs real quick given the opportiunity and needed roadblocks to thwart them.

    I’m with the second folks!


  59. 59 | July 23, 2010 5:48 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Nothing happened to them.
    The city was successfully sued, however. They’ve basically ignored the verdict, and most of the guns are still sitting in cargo containers rusting away even today.

    Nothing should have happened to them, I should have phrased the question “what ever happened to Ray Nagin”.


  60. 60 | July 23, 2010 5:51 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Just that as long as you don’t illegally kill anyone, they have no right to tell you what kind of gun you may own.

    That seems reasonable to me…

    As I pointed out in my blog post “Shall not be infringed.”

    The progressive movement has been eroding this amendment since early on in the 20th century. Hiding their actions behind such vile and detestable terms as reasonable regulations and public safety.

    The real truth is that the founding fathers left zero wiggle room regarding the regulation of firearms ownership. They made their thoughts on the subject absolutely crystal clear.

    Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
    334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

    Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
    inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
    better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
    may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
    Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

    Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
    safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
    the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

    Our founding fathers would be mortally offended and insulted by our gun control laws, the idea of even restricting convicted felons of the right to own a gun would have been an offense that could not have tolerated. Their own published word make that indisputably clear.


  61. coldwarrior
    61 | July 23, 2010 5:52 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    and class III holders never commit crime. ever.


  62. lobo91
    62 | July 23, 2010 5:52 pm

    @ Rancher:

    Nothing should have happened to them, I should have phrased the question “what ever happened to Ray Nagin”.

    He was re-elected as mayor, as I recall.

    Which should have resulted in the immediate cutoff of all federal aid to the city, in my opinion…


  63. lobo91
    63 | July 23, 2010 5:54 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    and class III holders never commit crime. ever.

    Neither do cancealed carry permit holders, for the most part.


  64. 64 | July 23, 2010 5:54 pm

    @ Rancher:

    The cops who enforced that unconstitutional order should have lost their jobs. Civil rights aren’t rights if the government is free to ignore them at a whim. There was nothing that happend during the aftermath of Katrina that merited the government confiscating citizens’ firearms. In fact, with the collapse of order and complete failure of local, State, and Federal Government, I’d say people needed their guns for self-protection more than they would have in a time that wasn’t an emergency. IIRC, the Courts said as much, but, as Lobo said, they are just ignoring what the Courts said.


  65. coldwarrior
    65 | July 23, 2010 5:55 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ doriangrey:
    and class III holders never commit crime. ever.
    Neither do cancealed carry permit holders, for the most part.

    hell..having the permit makes me think twice evry time i carry.


  66. vapig
    66 | July 23, 2010 5:58 pm

    Rancher wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    Nothing happened to them.
    The city was successfully sued, however. They’ve basically ignored the verdict, and most of the guns are still sitting in cargo containers rusting away even today.
    Nothing should have happened to them, I should have phrased the question “what ever happened to Ray Nagin”.

    I disagree – what they did was illegal. Some punative action should have been taken. I do know four cops are up on first degree murder charges there. I don’t recall all the details but it seems to me they killed people they were trying to disarm.


  67. coldwarrior
    67 | July 23, 2010 5:58 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I’d say people needed their guns for self-protection more than they would have in a time that wasn’t an emergency. IIRC, the Courts said as much, but, as Lobo said, they are just ignoring what the Courts said.

    why should the govt listen to its citizens that are unarmed?

    just sayin

    again, if this were a clampdown on free speech, what would happen


  68. 68 | July 23, 2010 5:59 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    and class III holders never commit crime. ever.

    There is no evil so great on the face of the earth as that done to restrict the rights of those rights are stripped from them for their own protection.


  69. lobo91
    69 | July 23, 2010 5:59 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    The cops who enforced that unconstitutional order should have lost their jobs. Civil rights aren’t rights if the government is free to ignore them at a whim.

    While I agree that there was no valid reason for them to confiscate people’s weapons, you can’t really base the argument on civil rights grounds, because at the time it happened, that was not the prevailing view.

    And it’s not the job of beat cops or National Guard members to make determinations of what orders they should or should not follow on Constitutional grounds.


  70. mtc
    70 | July 23, 2010 6:02 pm

    @ mjazz:
    That happened during Kristallnacht. The fire department didn’t come to put out the fires at the temples; instead they burned them to the ground.


  71. vapig
    71 | July 23, 2010 6:02 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    True – those people needed their guns. That city was overrun with gangs from surrounding states that came explicitely to loot a city they knew would be kaotic.


  72. lobo91
    72 | July 23, 2010 6:02 pm

    @ vapig:

    I disagree – what they did was illegal. Some punative action should have been taken. I do know four cops are up on first degree murder charges there. I don’t recall all the details but it seems to me they killed people they were trying to disarm.

    The cops who enforced that order didn’t break any laws that were in effect at that time. Those who issued the order should have been held responsible, though.

    And the cops who were charged with murder weren’t trying to disarm anyone. They shot people who were trying to cross a bridge into their town.


  73. 73 | July 23, 2010 6:03 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    And it’s not the job of beat cops or National Guard members to make determinations of what orders they should or should not follow on Constitutional grounds.

    I honestly suggest that you stop dead in your tracks and seriously consider the stupidity of that statement, You have just made the argument every rational person on the face of the earth has not only rejected by ridiculed… “I was only following orders”… It didnt fly in Nuremberg in 1946 and it still doesnt fly…


  74. 74 | July 23, 2010 6:04 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Rancher:
    The cops who enforced that unconstitutional order should have lost their jobs. Civil rights aren’t rights if the government is free to ignore them at a whim. There was nothing that happend during the aftermath of Katrina that merited the government confiscating citizens’ firearms. In fact, with the collapse of order and complete failure of local, State, and Federal Government, I’d say people needed their guns for self-protection more than they would have in a time that wasn’t an emergency. IIRC, the Courts said as much, but, as Lobo said, they are just ignoring what the Courts said.

    Well I was talking about the National Guardsmen but it’s all the same, they have all sworn to protect the constitution, it’s even in our oath to become correctional officers in New Mexico. However for a first responder to disobey an order during an emergency is going pretty far, I don’t know if I would have had the balls to do so.


  75. coldwarrior
    75 | July 23, 2010 6:05 pm

    i dont try to second guess anything that happened in NORLA during katrina.

    every aspect of that situation was a mess…it was an interesting insight into the minds of certain types of americans when it hits the fan.


  76. 76 | July 23, 2010 6:05 pm

    @ lobo91:

    “I was just following orders” doesn’t cut it. Some of those cops following orders killed some people. From what I recall, they are facing murder charges. Cops have a lot of discretion in those kind of situations, and they chose poorly. If this were another civil right they violated, they’d be lucky if all they lost was their job.


  77. vapig
    77 | July 23, 2010 6:06 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ vapig:
    I disagree – what they did was illegal. Some punative action should have been taken. I do know four cops are up on first degree murder charges there. I don’t recall all the details but it seems to me they killed people they were trying to disarm.
    The cops who enforced that order didn’t break any laws that were in effect at that time. Those who issued the order should have been held responsible, though.
    And the cops who were charged with murder weren’t trying to disarm anyone. They shot people who were trying to cross a bridge into their town.

    Thanks for the clarification – the story I read left it vague by also mentioning the gun confiscation. Those sorts of reporters like to write in such a way that “lead” a person to draw conclusions that were never exactly written in the article. Crossing the bridge wasn’t even mentioned.


  78. 78 | July 23, 2010 6:07 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    And the cops who were charged with murder weren’t trying to disarm anyone. They shot people who were trying to cross a bridge into their town.

    You can’t seriously believe that that is a credible arguement.


  79. vapig
    79 | July 23, 2010 6:07 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    “I was just following orders” doesn’t cut it. Some of those cops following orders killed some people. From what I recall, they are facing murder charges. Cops have a lot of discretion in those kind of situations, and they chose poorly. If this were another civil right they violated, they’d be lucky if all they lost was their job.

    You must’ve read the same article I did!


  80. coldwarrior
    80 | July 23, 2010 6:08 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    if i recall, confiscation was lawful in that situation.


  81. lobo91
    81 | July 23, 2010 6:10 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    I honestly suggest that you stop dead in your tracks and seriously consider the stupidity of that statement, You have just made the argument every rational person on the face of the earth has not only rejected by ridiculed… “I was only following orders”… It didnt fly in Nuremberg in 1946 and it still doesnt fly…

    Gee…how did I know that you were going to say that?

    And no, it’s not the same thing at all.

    If you can’t grasp the difference between following an order to do something like shoot unarmed prisoners and the niceties of Constitutional law, there’s not much I can do for you.

    The question of whether or not it was Constitutionally permissible to confiscate people’s weapons clearly wasn’t settled law, since it ended up being litigated afterwards.

    If there was enough of a question that it had to be settled in the courts, it’s certainly not something a cop or national Guard member should be forced to determine.


  82. vapig
    82 | July 23, 2010 6:12 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    if i recall, confiscation was lawful in that situation.

    The NRA disagreed and successfully sued. I kid you not that if kaos ensued over a natural or national disaster I would probably be shot dead by some yahoo who thought it’s safer to disarm me than to trust me to only use the gun in self defense. I would never allow myself to be disarmed!


  83. lobo91
    83 | July 23, 2010 6:13 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    And the cops who were charged with murder weren’t trying to disarm anyone. They shot people who were trying to cross a bridge into their town.
    You can’t seriously believe that that is a credible arguement.

    What gives you the idea that I consider that a credible defense?

    All I was doing was clarifying the facts of the incident. It had nothing to do with the New Orleans order to confiscate guns. They weren’t even New Orleans cops.

    I’m pretty sure they’re all going to end up spending the rest of their lives in prison, where they belong.


  84. 84 | July 23, 2010 6:13 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    if i recall, confiscation was lawful in that situation.

    Try again…

    New Orleans Mayor Admits Illegal Gun Confiscation

    Fairfax, VA-After a three-year legal battle over the unconstitutional confiscation of lawfully owned firearms, the City of New Orleans has agreed to settle a law suit by the National Rifle Association (NRA). A permanent injunction has been issued against the city, Mayor Ray Nagin and current Police Chief Warren Riley. The Second Amendment Foundation assisted NRA in the legal battle against Mayor Ray Nagin and the City of New Orleans.

    “Today’s outcome is an important victory for the citizens of New Orleans and the Second Amendment,” said Wayne LaPierre, NRA’s executive vice president. “We fought for three long years in a fundamental legal challenge to assert the inherent self-defense rights for law-abiding citizens, knowing the Constitution would prevail. Today it has prevailed and freedom has won.”

    Judge Carl J. Barbier presided over the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Judge Barbier signed the permanent injuncation against the City of New Orleans. The city admitted the firearm confiscations carried out by Nagin and Riley were unconstitutional and illegal.


  85. coldwarrior
    85 | July 23, 2010 6:14 pm

    @ vapig:

    lile i said, it wanst illegal to confiscate the guns in NORLA at that time.

    they woulndt have got my guns either because i am smart enough to know WHEN TO LEAVE!


  86. 86 | July 23, 2010 6:15 pm

    @ vapig:

    And that would be a hard decision to make, wouldn’t it? Fortunately, now we have some guidance from the Courts. Hopefully, next time (because there will be a next time sooner or later) wiser heads will prevail over panic, and such orders won’t be given.


  87. lobo91
    87 | July 23, 2010 6:16 pm

    @ vapig:

    The NRA disagreed and successfully sued.

    Yes, they did, but that’s not the point.

    At the time that incident took place, there was no law or precedent preventing them from doing so.

    Now there is.


  88. coldwarrior
    88 | July 23, 2010 6:16 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    litigated well after the fact. AND I AGREE IT WAS A BULLSHIT MOVE to take the guns

    still isnt illegal at that time and place under their laws for emergencies.


  89. buzzsawmonkey
    89 | July 23, 2010 6:16 pm

    mtc wrote:

    That happened during Kristallnacht. The fire department didn’t come to put out the fires at the temples; instead they burned them to the ground.

    Actually, according to the information at the central synagogue in Berlin, which I visited some years ago—now preserved as a ruin after the Nazis trashed it—during Kristallnacht the Berlin chief of police attempted to defend that building and several others from the Nazi mobs of Kristallnacht. He was, IIRC, later broken and imprisoned for doing so.

    Remember that during Kristallnacht the Nazis had not yet consolidated their power. There were still individuals in Germany who attempted to use their authority to preserve genuine law and order, and they should be remembered and honored for attempting to do so.


  90. 90 | July 23, 2010 6:16 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    And no, it’s not the same thing at all.

    Better try again…

    The city admitted the firearm confiscations carried out by Nagin and Riley were unconstitutional and illegal.


  91. lobo91
    91 | July 23, 2010 6:18 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    And that would be a hard decision to make, wouldn’t it? Fortunately, now we have some guidance from the Courts. Hopefully, next time (because there will be a next time sooner or later) wiser heads will prevail over panic, and such orders won’t be given.

    A number of states–Louisiana included–have since passed laws that explicitly forbid their authorities from issuing orders like that now.


  92. 92 | July 23, 2010 6:18 pm

    It was a really off the wall order, when I first heard it had happened I didn’t believe it and neither did the radio talk show host that I was listening to. I hope that had I been there I would have refused the order but it isn’t a given that the courts would have backed me up if I had been fired or court-martialed. NO settled the case, it wasn’t ruled on.


  93. 93 | July 23, 2010 6:18 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    But now there is plenty of litigsation to access the situation with. If the mayor ordered the National Guard to go into the city and arrest or detain every black man on the street, no one would obey and whomever ordered such a thing would be cashiered post-haste. This is no different.


  94. 94 | July 23, 2010 6:20 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    At the time that incident took place, there was no law or precedent preventing them from doing so.

    Now there is.

    Sorry, try again…. Wait for it….wait for it…..wait for it….

    unconstitutional

    The US Constitution wasnt ratified yesterday, or last year, or even in 2008… Are you getting it yet? They admitted that their actions were unconstitutional, that means, yes there actually was a law against what they did, yes it was already illegal for them to confiscate peoples guns.


  95. lobo91
    95 | July 23, 2010 6:22 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    As soon as you can show me a statute that existed prior to the date of the confiscations that specifically says that it’s illegal to confiscate weapons from citizens in the event of a natural disaster, I’ll agree with you. There is such a statute in Louisiana now, but it didn’t exist at the time.

    And don’t bother citing the 2nd Amendment, because as I’ve said several times already, it’s not the job of cops or National Guard members on the street to make Constitutional determinations.


  96. coldwarrior
    96 | July 23, 2010 6:22 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    you are being especially bullheaded today, have been boozin all day.


  97. vapig
    97 | July 23, 2010 6:23 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ vapig:
    lile i said, it wanst illegal to confiscate the guns in NORLA at that time.
    they woulndt have got my guns either because i am smart enough to know WHEN TO LEAVE!

    True dat. If I saw a whopper mega 5 cat hurricane coming at me and had a weeks notice I’d be around 500 miles away by the time it hit! I have lots of family that lived in that area – some in NOLA, some in places in Mississippi that were totally wiped off the map. Trust me – no one was home when it hit!


  98. 98 | July 23, 2010 6:23 pm

    Opened a can of worms here and now I’m going home. See ya all later.


  99. vapig
    99 | July 23, 2010 6:25 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ vapig:
    And that would be a hard decision to make, wouldn’t it? Fortunately, now we have some guidance from the Courts. Hopefully, next time (because there will be a next time sooner or later) wiser heads will prevail over panic, and such orders won’t be given.

    While it may have been foggy in NOLA, I fortunately live in an in-your-face open carry state. I don’t think the question would come up here.


  100. BuddyG
    100 | July 23, 2010 6:25 pm

    Quit While You’re Ahead


  101. coldwarrior
    101 | July 23, 2010 6:25 pm

    @ vapig:

    there is no honor lost in retreating form a storm like that.


  102. lobo91
    102 | July 23, 2010 6:25 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    But now there is plenty of litigsation to access the situation with. If the mayor ordered the National Guard to go into the city and arrest or detain every black man on the street, no one would obey and whomever ordered such a thing would be cashiered post-haste. This is no different.

    It’s no different now, because of legal determinations and laws that have been passed since then.

    To use your example, would they have thought twice about following such an order in, say, Atlanta in 1870?


  103. snork
    103 | July 23, 2010 6:26 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ doriangrey:

    you are being especially bullheaded today

    How can you tell? I didn’t notice anything unusual…


  104. lobo91
    104 | July 23, 2010 6:27 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    You can post links to Infowars all you want, but I’m not clicking on them.


  105. 105 | July 23, 2010 6:28 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    you are being especially bullheaded today, have been boozin all day.

    I haven’t been boozin all day and do get quite animated and excited when discussing the US Constitution.


  106. vapig
    106 | July 23, 2010 6:29 pm

    Rancher wrote:

    Opened a can of worms here and now I’m going home. See ya all later.

    Have a great weekend!


  107. coldwarrior
    107 | July 23, 2010 6:31 pm

    infowars???

    please. fucking lying bastard on that site.


  108. vapig
    108 | July 23, 2010 6:34 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ vapig:
    there is no honor lost in retreating form a storm like that.

    I kid you not that one of my cousins and her husband returned to their home (close to Gulf Port and close to the beach) and the only thing left was splintered remains of the stilts the home was on. They had flood insurance but the adjuster told them they were denied because the surge washed their home away and not a flood (??????!!!!).

    Fortunately, the adjustor was a yankee and got hit with their southern charm when they invited him to eat off the BBQ grill they had brought with them. By the end of the meal (from people who clearly had NOTHING!) he had approved their claim!


  109. coldwarrior
    109 | July 23, 2010 6:35 pm

    snork wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ doriangrey:
    you are being especially bullheaded today
    How can you tell? I didn’t notice anything unusual…

    i got one of the those intractotools form cj!

    :lol:


  110. 110 | July 23, 2010 6:35 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Of course they would have obeyed the orders? Nathan Bedford Forrest’s troops followed his orders at Fort Pillow. Does that make it right? Things are different now. Anyone who obeys such orders now should be subject to the full force of the law for unlawfully violating the civil rights of American citizens.

    I wasn’t questioning their authority, though that is tenuous. I am questioning their judgement. A reasonable man could look at the breakdown in the legal structures and reasonably conclude that obeying such orders put more people at risk. That discretion should have been used enforcing such an edict. That is well within the job description of either National Guard or (especially) professional law enforcement.

    It is moot, now. Such an edict is unconstitutional and, in many jurisdictions, actually illegal. That is a good thing.


  111. lobo91
    111 | July 23, 2010 6:40 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    That is well within the job description of either National Guard or (especially) professional law enforcement.

    It’s absolutely not within the job description of National Guard members. The only training they receive that’s any different from the rest of the military is in crowd control tactics.

    There’s no training in Constitutional law.


  112. coldwarrior
    112 | July 23, 2010 6:45 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    believe me, you dont want pvt smokie adjudicating the subtleties of law in a declared emergency zone from his hmmwv.


  113. lobo91
    113 | July 23, 2010 6:48 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    believe me, you dont want pvt smokie adjudicating the subtleties of law in a declared emergency zone from his hmmwv.

    Exactly.

    Yes, someone in the chain of command should have questioned it.

    But not the 20 year olds on the ground enforcing it.


  114. 114 | July 23, 2010 6:48 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    There’s no training in Constitutional law.

    Since when did ignorance of the law become a valid defense? OK, I’m off to do the boozin that coldwarrior refuses to do… (oh, and the infowar link was just the first convenient link to the article google displayed, the fact that infowar carried the article does not invalidate the article or the judges ruling.)


  115. coldwarrior
    115 | July 23, 2010 6:49 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    OK, I’m off to do the boozin that coldwarrior refuses to do… (

    already one martini in!


  116. 116 | July 23, 2010 6:49 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    But not the 20 year olds on the ground enforcing it.

    I was just following orders… still doesnt work…


  117. 117 | July 23, 2010 6:50 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    Better than his, say, shooting someone who refused to turn over their rifle. Fortunately that didn’t happen here, but it was certainly a possibility. I don’t want officers or civillian leadership giving these orders. And now, as I think we all agree, there is plenty to go on legally. Anyone who gave such orders now should be court martialled if they are millitary, or arrested if they are civillian.


  118. coldwarrior
    118 | July 23, 2010 6:50 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ Iron Fist:
    believe me, you dont want pvt smokie adjudicating the subtleties of law in a declared emergency zone from his hmmwv.
    Exactly.
    Yes, someone in the chain of command should have questioned it.
    But not the 20 year olds on the ground enforcing it.

    full colonel or someone from JAG would be appropriate there.

    they are ‘officers’ after all and have that sort of authority.


  119. coldwarrior
    119 | July 23, 2010 6:51 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Better than his, say, shooting someone who refused to turn over their rifle.

    NOW ya got a right to refuse that is ingrained in the training.

    good did come from this, the law is very clear now.


  120. buzzsawmonkey
    120 | July 23, 2010 6:52 pm

    Gotta go, gang–Shabbos calls.

    Remember that “human rights” are a wolf in sheep’s clothing.


  121. coldwarrior
    121 | July 23, 2010 6:52 pm

    oh, and the bar is open…martini’s anyone?


  122. buzzsawmonkey
    122 | July 23, 2010 6:53 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    oh, and the bar is open…martini’s anyone?

    Chill that djinn, baby…


  123. chickadee
    123 | July 23, 2010 6:53 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    believe me, you dont want pvt smokie adjudicating the subtleties of law in a declared emergency zone from his hmmwv.

    Exactly.

    Yes, someone in the chain of command should have questioned it.

    But not the 20 year olds on the ground enforcing it.

    I hope someone in the chain of command does more than question it, when zero tries to put the full force of law enforcement and the military on us when he declares martial law and starts rounding up people, like a dictatorial sob.


  124. Empire1
    124 | July 23, 2010 6:54 pm

    @ coldwarrior:
    “When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpecual peace.
    “They swore, if we gave up our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    “But when we disarmed they sold us and delivered us bound to our foe’
    “And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: ‘Stick to the Devil you know.’”


  125. 125 | July 23, 2010 6:55 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    oh, and the bar is open…martini’s anyone?

    I think I’ll go for quadruple rum & coke, or whiskey sour.


  126. coldwarrior
    126 | July 23, 2010 6:55 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Gotta go, gang–Shabbos calls.
    Remember that “human rights” are a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    joyous sabbath!


  127. coldwarrior
    127 | July 23, 2010 6:56 pm

    FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    oh, and the bar is open…martini’s anyone?

    I think I’ll go for quadruple rum & coke, or whiskey sour.

    clear or spiced rum?

    appleton or bacardi


  128. coldwarrior
    128 | July 23, 2010 6:57 pm

    Empire1 wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    “When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpecual peace.
    “They swore, if we gave up our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    “But when we disarmed they sold us and delivered us bound to our foe’
    “And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: ‘Stick to the Devil you know.’”

    yep…the bigger question here is why havent NOLA given back the guns or why should they bother, the citizenry has lost its arms, therefore lost its threat of real violence and unrest against the tyrants.


  129. lobo91
    129 | July 23, 2010 6:58 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    That situation is actually a good example of why you don’t want the military involved in law enforcement actions against civilians.

    The most they should have been doing is supporting the civilian cops. They never should have been out there on their own going into people’s houses.


  130. unclassifiable
    130 | July 23, 2010 6:58 pm

    Funny how conservative dissent is unpatriotic (well not that funny).


  131. 131 | July 23, 2010 6:59 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
    coldwarrior wrote:

    oh, and the bar is open…martini’s anyone?

    I think I’ll go for quadruple rum & coke, or whiskey sour.

    clear or spiced rum?
    appleton or bacardi

    Montego Bay Gold Rum, actually. I’m a cheap drunk. ;)

    But do like Captain Morgan’s Spiced Rum, Bacardi Spiced is good, too. Just way too expensive with the Washington State liquor sin taxes.


  132. lobo91
    132 | July 23, 2010 6:59 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    yep…the bigger question here is why havent NOLA given back the guns

    Why do Democrat politicians do anything? Because they can.


  133. coldwarrior
    133 | July 23, 2010 7:00 pm

    @ lobo91:

    exactly, have the guard in hmmwv drive one leo around…and support his actions


  134. 134 | July 23, 2010 7:00 pm

    This is interesting:

    Raising the Stakes in the New Black Panther Case [Hans A. von Spakovsky]

    As Commissioner Peter Kirsanow reported earlier, Rep. Lamar Smith sent a letter yesterday to President Obama asking him to appoint a special counsel to investigate not just the dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case but also “whether the Department has adopted a policy of enforcing voting rights laws in a racially discriminatory manner.” This puts the president in an interesting dilemma: Smith is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and if the Republicans take back the House in November, Smith will become the chairman. Attorney General Eric Holder has essentially ignored Smith’s demands for information on the NBPP case for the past year — that’s not exactly behavior calculated to endear you to the chairman of the most powerful committee with jurisdiction over your department.

    Today, the ante was upped even more. I just learned from a congressional source that all seven GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee — Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn — sent a letter to Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy demanding an oversight hearing of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ to investigate the dismissal of this case and the allegations of racialist enforcement of the civil-rights laws (PDF of the letter here). The senators cited sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes instructed Division attorneys that they would not pursue cases against black defendants and that the DOJ has no interest in enforcing Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act.

    If all this were reversed (white intimidators, white Republican Administration), this would probably bring down the President. I certainly don’t expect it to get that far with Obama, but it is going to be interesting to see how far the Republicans take it before they pussy out.


  135. 135 | July 23, 2010 7:01 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    Funny how conservative dissent is unpatriotic (well not that funny).

    19 months ago, and the 8 years prior, it was the height of patriotism to dissent. Now the Progressives want anyone who even hints at dissent rounded up.


  136. 136 | July 23, 2010 7:01 pm

    @ unclassifiable:

    Progressives are totalitarian.


  137. lobo91
    137 | July 23, 2010 7:02 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    exactly, have the guard in hmmwv drive one leo around…and support his actions

    Yup. You might, maybe, get me to buy into letting MPs do something like that.

    But not just random troops.


  138. coldwarrior
    138 | July 23, 2010 7:03 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ lobo91:
    exactly, have the guard in hmmwv drive one leo around…and support his actions
    Yup. You might, maybe, get me to buy into letting MPs do something like that.
    But not just random troops.

    NO.

    NO.

    NO.

    and i was an MP.

    NO NO please NO.

    not enough legal training outside the ucmj


  139. coldwarrior
    139 | July 23, 2010 7:05 pm

    FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:

    unclassifiable wrote:
    Funny how conservative dissent is unpatriotic (well not that funny).

    19 months ago, and the 8 years prior, it was the height of patriotism to dissent. Now the Progressives want anyone who even hints at dissent rounded up.

    amazing, no?

    /


  140. vapig
    140 | July 23, 2010 7:08 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    oh, and the bar is open…martini’s anyone?

    One here, please!


  141. unclassifiable
    141 | July 23, 2010 7:09 pm

    @ FurryOldGuyJeans:

    Wray & Nepheww Rum & Coke

    Rough week in Commufornia.


  142. coldwarrior
    142 | July 23, 2010 7:14 pm

    @ vapig:

    coming up:

    2.5 oz stoli crystal 100proof
    dash of sweet vermouth
    dash of dry vermouth

    stir vigorously in ice, pour into frozen martini glass, garnish with one kalamata olive and one cocktail onion

    enjoy


  143. coldwarrior
    143 | July 23, 2010 7:14 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    @ FurryOldGuyJeans:
    Wray & Nepheww Rum & Coke
    Rough week in Commufornia.

    comming up:

    3 oz wray and nephew
    6 oz mexican coke a cola (cane sugar not hfcs)
    ice

    twist lime garnish.


  144. unclassifiable
    144 | July 23, 2010 7:18 pm

    @ Iron Fist

    Hey if a Caucasian said what Sherrod said with race roles reversed, you’re damn straight it would be “racist” — no question about it.


  145. unclassifiable
    145 | July 23, 2010 7:21 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    Gracias. Gulp. Keep it coming (hic).


  146. coldwarrior
    146 | July 23, 2010 7:23 pm

    @ unclassifiable:

    cheers!

    i’m not up on my rums…gotta do some research


  147. unclassifiable
    147 | July 23, 2010 7:23 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Progressives ain’t.


  148. unclassifiable
    148 | July 23, 2010 7:28 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    Not good to smoke with this stuff. Fire hazard.

    BTW Take the extra w off of Nepheww. Typo on my droid.


  149. yenta-fada
    149 | July 23, 2010 7:29 pm

    Facebook admits to “automatic” of anti-Islamic posts:

    http://www.thejidf.org/2010/07/cnn-facebook-admits-automated-censoring.html


  150. yenta-fada
    150 | July 23, 2010 7:30 pm

    PIMF
    automatic deleting. Maybe I should take up drinking.


  151. Philip_Daniel
    151 | July 23, 2010 7:32 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    @ Iron Fist
    Hey if a Caucasian said what Sherrod said with race roles reversed, you’re damn straight it would be “racist” — no question about it.

    Unless said Caucasian is a mu’min, of course. Because, you know, Bosniak is the new Black!


  152. 152 | July 23, 2010 7:32 pm

    yenta-fada wrote:

    PIMF
    automatic deleting. Maybe I should take up drinking.

    *urp*

    As good an excuse as any, what with the prospects for severely bad political times ahead.


  153. coldwarrior
    153 | July 23, 2010 7:34 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    Not good to smoke with this stuff. Fire hazard.
    BTW Take the extra w off of Nepheww. Typo on my droid.

    i did and put up the link for it to make up for the spelling error


  154. Philip_Daniel
    154 | July 23, 2010 7:35 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
    unclassifiable wrote:
    Funny how conservative dissent is unpatriotic (well not that funny).
    19 months ago, and the 8 years prior, it was the height of patriotism to dissent. Now the Progressives want anyone who even hints at dissent rounded up.

    amazing, no?
    /

    You see, the Democratic Party is the Party of the Black Man.

    Thus, if you dissent from its platform, you are an incorrigible racist colonialist bigot who is probably a Christian Taliban.


  155. yenta-fada
    155 | July 23, 2010 7:35 pm

    FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:

    yenta-fada wrote:
    PIMF
    automatic deleting. Maybe I should take up drinking.
    *urp*
    As good an excuse as any, what with the prospects for severely bad political times ahead.

    Can’t drink. Can’t smoke. Can’t run around. Can’t think what bad habit that might actually help. :-)


  156. yenta-fada
    156 | July 23, 2010 7:37 pm

    Philip_Daniel wrote:

    unclassifiable wrote:
    @ Iron Fist
    Hey if a Caucasian said what Sherrod said with race roles reversed, you’re damn straight it would be “racist” — no question about it.
    Unless said Caucasian is a mu’min, of course. Because, you know, Bosniak is the new Black!

    Aaaaand an oldie but goodie…Mike Wallace and Morgan Freeman.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ&feature=player_embedded


  157. unclassifiable
    157 | July 23, 2010 7:38 pm

    @ Philip_Daniel:

    Race is now relative (to whatever situation you need to play the race card to stifle dissent).


  158. coldwarrior
    158 | July 23, 2010 7:38 pm

    @ Philip_Daniel:

    thats me! reactionary american


  159. 159 | July 23, 2010 7:38 pm

    yenta-fada wrote:

    FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
    yenta-fada wrote:
    PIMF
    automatic deleting. Maybe I should take up drinking.
    *urp*
    As good an excuse as any, what with the prospects for severely bad political times ahead.
    Can’t drink. Can’t smoke. Can’t run around. Can’t think what bad habit that might actually help.

    Live Free and Conservative, pisses off the Progressives.


  160. yenta-fada
    160 | July 23, 2010 7:41 pm

    FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:

    yenta-fada wrote:
    FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
    yenta-fada wrote:
    PIMF
    automatic deleting. Maybe I should take up drinking.
    *urp*
    As good an excuse as any, what with the prospects for severely bad political times ahead.
    Can’t drink. Can’t smoke. Can’t run around. Can’t think what bad habit that might actually help.
    Live Free and Conservative, pisses off the Progressives.

    OMG. Up here in Canada if I did that, I wouldn’t have any friends left. Not to mention family members.


  161. Lily
    161 | July 23, 2010 7:46 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ vapig:
    there is no honor lost in retreating form a storm like that.

    Oh hell no. Rita came just weeks after that and left massive destruction where I live. Was there rioting here….no. We helped each other. And no I didn’t stay the few people I did know who stayed said they would never stay again. Trust me in the fact evacuation is a nightmare. It took 9 hours to travel just two hours north of here. Yet people were still helping each other along the way.


  162. unclassifiable
    162 | July 23, 2010 7:49 pm

    @ yenta-fada:

    Just be a full time conservative anus. The proregressives will attribute it to one of those vices (plus some mental defects for good measure) and it will be as if you actually had “issues”.


  163. yenta-fada
    163 | July 23, 2010 7:54 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    @ yenta-fada:
    Just be a full time conservative anus. The proregressives will attribute it to one of those vices (plus some mental defects for good measure) and it will be as if you actually had “issues”.

    Whadya mean? I GOT issues. :-) I’m here, aren’t I? It’s a meeting place for people with issues. We just have the right issues.


  164. unclassifiable
    164 | July 23, 2010 7:55 pm

    Do@ Lily:

    10 hour trip to Dallas I took was considered fast.

    BTW Cats & MILs don’t do evac well.


  165. 165 | July 23, 2010 7:56 pm

    Islam should be outlawed. I know some will say that is against the 1st amendment but it is fundamentally why we left England to begin with. It is a Church endorsing a Government, or is it the other way around… This is not just the State endorsing a Religion, it is the State being the Religion and should be banished from the land forever and without reprieve as it is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution of the USofA. I find it funny that while the left argues against a baby in the manger, they seem to be fine with a totalitarian and militant religious group bent on ruling the country, oh wait that is just the Christians that they are worried about because they have a long and recent history of Stonings, Beheadings, Bombings and general terror and mayhem.


  166. unclassifiable
    166 | July 23, 2010 7:58 pm

    BBFN droid is running out of juice.


  167. 167 | July 23, 2010 8:02 pm

    @ Philip_Daniel:

    That’s true when I was growing up, the Bosnials and Turks were considered Black by the 5percenter Muslims. Even though they were white, by being Muslim, they found their inner Blackness! Islam is for the Black Man, that’s why the Kaaba is black!

    That’s what they claimed.


  168. coldwarrior
    168 | July 23, 2010 8:04 pm

    @ rgranger:

    islam is not a religion, its a political movement


  169. 169 | July 23, 2010 8:07 pm

    snork wrote:

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:
    Just like Mad King Yertle, who has decreed to his posters that he will “Muzzle ‘em for the Muslims.”
    Uh-oh. You referred to a piece of canine anatomy in the same sentence as a holy follower of The Prophet™. Off to the elimination camp with you.

    Any ideology whose adherents put out a fatwa against DOGS (I am not kidding, it happened quite recently) is clearly insane.


  170. 170 | July 23, 2010 8:08 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ rgranger:
    islam is not a religion, its a political movement

    AND a pathology, IMO.


  171. 171 | July 23, 2010 8:10 pm

    rgranger wrote:

    Islam should be outlawed. I know some will say that is against the 1st amendment but it is fundamentally why we left England to begin with. It is a Church endorsing a Government, or is it the other way around… This is not just the State endorsing a Religion, it is the State being the Religion and should be banished from the land forever and without reprieve as it is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution of the USofA. I find it funny that while the left argues against a baby in the manger, they seem to be fine with a totalitarian and militant religious group bent on ruling the country, oh wait that is just the Christians that they are worried about because they have a long and recent history of Stonings, Beheadings, Bombings and general terror and mayhem.

    It would probably take a Constitutional amendment narrowly focused on Islam to outlaw Islam without opening the door to government restrictions against the practice of Christianity and Judaism at some point in the future. But I’m with you on that.


  172. 172 | July 23, 2010 8:18 pm

    FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    FurryOldGuyJeans wrote:
    coldwarrior wrote:
    oh, and the bar is open…martini’s anyone?
    I think I’ll go for quadruple rum & coke, or whiskey sour.
    clear or spiced rum?
    appleton or bacardi
    Montego Bay Gold Rum, actually. I’m a cheap drunk.
    But do like Captain Morgan’s Spiced Rum, Bacardi Spiced is good, too. Just way too expensive with the Washington State liquor sin taxes.

    I’ll go for a little whiskey, neat.


  173. Bordm
    173 | July 23, 2010 8:23 pm

    Lily wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ vapig:
    there is no honor lost in retreating form a storm like that.
    Oh hell no. Rita came just weeks after that and left massive destruction where I live. Was there rioting here….no. We helped each other. And no I didn’t stay the few people I did know who stayed said they would never stay again. Trust me in the fact evacuation is a nightmare. It took 9 hours to travel just two hours north of here. Yet people were still helping each other along the way.

    9 hours is a walk in the park, I spent over 20 hours inching along during the Rita evacuation. I live near Beaumont.


  174. 174 | July 23, 2010 8:26 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    And it’s not the job of beat cops or National Guard members to make determinations of what orders they should or should not follow on Constitutional grounds.
    I honestly suggest that you stop dead in your tracks and seriously consider the stupidity of that statement, You have just made the argument every rational person on the face of the earth has not only rejected by ridiculed… “I was only following orders”… It didnt fly in Nuremberg in 1946 and it still doesnt fly…

    I thought every government official, at all levels, had to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and (if under State jurisdiction) the Constitution of their State.

    If beat cops or National Guard members aren’t being required to take such an oath, that needs to be changed PDQ.

    It is not just the SCOTUS that is charged with evaluating whether something is Constitutional and acting accordingly. It is ALL government officials. For that matter, it’s every citizen’s duty to abide by the Constitution.


  175. Lily
    175 | July 23, 2010 8:34 pm

    Bordm wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ vapig:
    there is no honor lost in retreating form a storm like that.
    Oh hell no. Rita came just weeks after that and left massive destruction where I live. Was there rioting here….no. We helped each other. And no I didn’t stay the few people I did know who stayed said they would never stay again. Trust me in the fact evacuation is a nightmare. It took 9 hours to travel just two hours north of here. Yet people were still helping each other along the way.
    9 hours is a walk in the park, I spent over 20 hours inching along during the Rita evacuation. I live near Beaumont.

    Yep because Houston was evacuating and some were towards Louisiana….it was gridlock. My friend who met up with me here to go to Alexandria was from Houston took her 10 hours for the two hour trip to here then another 9 hours from here to get to Alexandria….what a trip that was. (hubby knew all the back roads and even those were bumper to bumper) we stayed off I-10.


  176. Lily
    176 | July 23, 2010 8:39 pm

    Bordm wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    coldwarrior wrote:
    @ vapig:
    there is no honor lost in retreating form a storm like that.
    Oh hell no. Rita came just weeks after that and left massive destruction where I live. Was there rioting here….no. We helped each other. And no I didn’t stay the few people I did know who stayed said they would never stay again. Trust me in the fact evacuation is a nightmare. It took 9 hours to travel just two hours north of here. Yet people were still helping each other along the way.
    9 hours is a walk in the park, I spent over 20 hours inching along during the Rita evacuation. I live near Beaumont.

    That was a hell of an evac on Rita wasn’t it?…..you don’t live far from me.


  177. Philip_Daniel
    177 | July 23, 2010 8:42 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Islam is for the Black Man

    Anyone who asserts that, according to canonical Islamic scripture and exegetical works, is “guilty” of fabricating an unjust bid’ah outside the boundaries of the tenets of tawhid as “revealed” in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and thus is “guilty” of shirk al-hakimiyyah (polytheism of legislation) and kufr al-istibdaal (disbelief of trying to substitute Shari’a with man-made laws). The term for such a zalim (transgressor), according to Shari’a, is a zand (a heretic) and what’s more, a murtadd and mohareb

    NOI has committed among the worst varieties of kufr and shirk, of taghoot and zulm, of dhulm and fusooq and fitnah and fasaad according to orthodox Sunnism…

    “Abu Darda reported that the Holy Prophet said: Allah created Adam when he created him (sic). Then He stroke (sic) his right shoulder and took out a white race as if they were seeds, and He stroke (sic) his left shoulder and took out a black race as if they were coals. Then He said to those who were in his right side: Towards paradise and I don’t care. He said to those who were on his left shoulder: Towards Hell and I don’t care. – Ahmad”–Mishkat, v. iii, p. 117

    “Allah’s Messenger said: Allah created Adam when He had to create him and He struck his right shoulder and there emitted from it white offspring as if they were white ants. He struck his left shoulder and there emitted from it the black offspring as if they were charcoal. He then said (to those who had been emitted) from the right (shoulder): For Paradise and I do not mind. Then He said to those (who had been emitted) from his left shoulder: They are for hell and I do not mind. Transmitted by Ahmad.”–Jami at-Tirmidhi 38

    “Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed.”"–Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi’s Qadi ‘Iyad, p.375

    Zanadiqa must invariably be killed, per the commands of rasul’allah in the sahih ahadith

    “Narrated ‘Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”–Sahih Bukhari Volume 9 Book 84 Number 57


  178. Bordm
    178 | July 23, 2010 8:47 pm

    @ Lily:

    Yep because Houston was evacuating and some were towards Louisiana….it was gridlock. My friend who met up with me here to go to Alexandria was from Houston took her 10 hours for the two hour trip to here then another 9 hours from here to get to Alexandria….what a trip that was. (hubby knew all the back roads and even those were bumper to bumper) we stayed off I-10.

    It was interesting to say the least. I was amazed by the number of people who did not have a map. I had a crowd around me, wanting to see where we were on my map. 95% of the people around me were very nice and friendly, after all we were all stuck in the same mess. There were a few assholes and I loved the remarks that were made about them. It was pretty funny at times.


  179. NoThreat2U
    179 | July 23, 2010 8:48 pm

    @ 1389AD:
    I thought every government official, at all levels, had to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and (if under State jurisdiction) the Constitution of their State.

    Then please explain Keith Ellison.


  180. Lily
    180 | July 23, 2010 9:01 pm

    @ Bordm:

    Oh my they didn’t have a map? Thankfully when we do have to evac either to Texas or more north up in Louisiana the maps are in both me and my husbands heads. Try and take the off beaten path to avoid most of the bumper to bumper evacuations. On the evac for Rita…there was no road that wasn’t bumper to bumper. Yeah it was interesting to say the least..we didn’t come across any a$$holes at all. Everyone like you said was in the same mess. Now restrooms were to say the least hard to find all gas stations had lines and lines of cars and so did the lines to the restrooms…..oh boy…I’ll never forget Rita.


  181. Bordm
    181 | July 23, 2010 9:01 pm

    @ Lily:

    That was a hell of an evac on Rita wasn’t it?…..you don’t live far from me.

    The kicker was, I had some friends that left just ahead of the storm and they got there about the same time as I did. Yeah, I’d say less then an hour away if you are on the west side of Lake Charles, a bit more if on the east side. I’m about 12 miles south of Beaumont, in a little spot in the road called LaBelle.


  182. Lily
    182 | July 23, 2010 9:09 pm

    @ Bordm:

    I’m about 45 minutes away from Beaumont in small town called Sulphur.
    So you and me got damage from Rita…our house was fine except for a huge tree limb in the patio cover, one huge tree went down in our yard but away from the house and into the street, our fence was knocked down. The tree damage was massive you should have seen the streets….if felt like you were driving through tunnels once people came home and started to clean up and repair. At least 6 to 7 ft high of tree limbs and brush on both sides of the street lined nearly every street in town. One house just two doors away had 3 trees crash into it. Pines they snapped midway…from the strong wind. If I never hear a chainsaw again I will be fine oh never hear the sounds of new roofs being but on either.


  183. Lily
    183 | July 23, 2010 9:13 pm

    @ Bordm:

    No kidding I had some friends leave that Friday of the morning that the storm hit that night of and she said I-10 was clear sailing all the way. We left that Thursday mid-morning….


  184. Bordm
    184 | July 23, 2010 9:16 pm

    @ Lily:

    Rita ripped half my roof off, Ike only broke a couple windows. I’m not looking forward to spending several weeks listening to generators again. On the other hand the MRE parties were fun.


  185. Bordm
    185 | July 23, 2010 9:22 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ Bordm:
    No kidding I had some friends leave that Friday of the morning that the storm hit that night of and she said I-10 was clear sailing all the way. We left that Thursday mid-morning….

    Same here but we left around 5:30 or 6:00 PM, one of the members of my convoy was supposed to be ready to leave that morning. When I went be to get her, she was running around like a chicken with it’s head cut off, it took the rest intervening hours for me to do what she was supposed to have done the day before. Oh well, no good deed goes unpunished. It’s actually a long but extremely (now) funny story.


  186. Lily
    186 | July 23, 2010 9:23 pm

    Bordm wrote:

    @ Lily:
    Rita ripped half my roof off, Ike only broke a couple windows. I’m not looking forward to spending several weeks listening to generators again. On the other hand the MRE parties were fun.

    Oh good lord I forgot the about the generators….magically our didn’t even lose a shingle. We stayed for Ike..not much damage at all here some pretty good winds though..you got board up those windows! :)
    I guess living along the coast you just have that instinct of when to go and when you know you can handle it. On Rita I saw how it was tracking and knew it was going to hit right down the Texas and Louisian border line and it was going to pack a punch. Even a blood moon was out before Rita…felt it in my bones.


  187. Lily
    187 | July 23, 2010 9:28 pm

    Bordm wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    @ Bordm:
    No kidding I had some friends leave that Friday of the morning that the storm hit that night of and she said I-10 was clear sailing all the way. We left that Thursday mid-morning….
    Same here but we left around 5:30 or 6:00 PM, one of the members of my convoy was supposed to be ready to leave that morning. When I went be to get her, she was running around like a chicken with it’s head cut off, it took the rest intervening hours for me to do what she was supposed to have done the day before. Oh well, no good deed goes unpunished. It’s actually a long but extremely (now) funny story.

    Oh wow we traveled in a convoy also. The day before we left I told the husband it was going to hit here and he needed to board up the windows he didn’t listen to me and didn’t think it would hit here.
    Well the next day when mandatory evac was issued he came home from work and was having to board up all the windows as fast as he could (he should have listened to my bones) :) ….of course I had everything else ready.


  188. Bordm
    188 | July 23, 2010 9:40 pm

    @ Lily:

    I stayed for Ike also, cat 2 with cat 5 surge. Rita was a cat 5. I’ll stay in a cat 2, I’ll think hard about leaving in a cat 3. Cat4 and up, no contest, I’m running like a scalded cat. I might be a bit crazy but I’m far from stupid.


  189. Lily
    189 | July 23, 2010 9:52 pm

    Bordm wrote:

    @ Lily:
    I stayed for Ike also, cat 2 with cat 5 surge. Rita was a cat 5. I’ll stay in a cat 2, I’ll think hard about leaving in a cat 3. Cat4 and up, no contest, I’m running like a scalded cat. I might be a bit crazy but I’m far from stupid.

    Yeah I think we are both far enough inland to avoid the surge Cat 1 or Cat 2 I’m with you there but if they were at one time a Cat 5 they would still be packing some punch. I suppose it is just a way of life around here and many people don’t understand. No one needs to tell us when to evac…all you have to do is look at the storm on the radar and what the winds are and you know. I’m not stupid either.
    I make sure I stock up on things.
    The funny thing with Ike is the only storm my friend from Houston and I didn’t meet up together with. It has been a standing thing for us we go through storms together. She stayed in Houston and when I talked to her she said never again. We stay together through these damn storms.
    I told her you broke the tradition. We have been best friends for 33 years. I don’t think she’ll break with storm tradition again. :)


  190. Bordm
    190 | July 23, 2010 10:38 pm

    @ Lily:

    I suppose it is just a way of life around here and many people don’t understand. No one needs to tell us when to evac…all you have to do is look at the storm on the radar and what the winds are and you know. I’m not stupid either.

    Both sides of my family have been down here since they were kicked out of Nova Scotia. My mom’s family ended up south of Abbeville, my dad’s family moved to Texas (from La) in the 1820′s. I grew up on stories of the big storms and Cajun lore.


  191. Lily
    191 | July 23, 2010 10:50 pm

    Bordm wrote:

    @ Lily:
    I suppose it is just a way of life around here and many people don’t understand. No one needs to tell us when to evac…all you have to do is look at the storm on the radar and what the winds are and you know. I’m not stupid either.
    Both sides of my family have been down here since they were kicked out of Nova Scotia. My mom’s family ended up south of Abbeville, my dad’s family moved to Texas (from La) in the 1820′s. I grew up on stories of the big storms and Cajun lore.

    So did I. Audrey especially because my mom and grandparents went through it. The National Weather Service screwed up on that one. Told the people of Cameron it would be safe to evacuate the next day. When the people of Cameron woke up early to evac water was nearly in there houses. Audrey picked speed and strength during the night before anyone could evac and about 500 people died. Then they blamed it on people just not evacuating. Looked into the history of that storm as I got older. Many of my grandparents friends died because they NWS cut it too close on evacuation. Grandfather was mayor of Vinton and the eye went right over….heard many, many tales of that storm and others.
    The underlining message was TAKE HURRICANES SERIOUSLY.
    So you have some cajun in you huh? So do I.


  192. Bordm
    192 | July 23, 2010 11:44 pm

    Wow, I was talking with one of my cousins about Audrey earlier today. She was caught in it too, she said the same thing you did. Both sides of my family are Cajun, though there is a little bit of swamp Irish on my mom’s side.


  193. Lily
    193 | July 24, 2010 12:06 am

    @ Bordm:

    Irish on my father’s side, cajun on my mother’s side.
    On Audrey…it was a terrible thing the National Weather Service did.
    Not so much that they got it wrong…but they lied and said it was because the people of Cameron didn’t want to evacuate. These people took storms seriously. But to lie and cover up their mistake is like spitting on them.


  194. Bordm
    194 | July 24, 2010 12:18 am

    Lily wrote:

    @ Bordm:
    Irish on my father’s side, cajun on my mother’s side.
    On Audrey…it was a terrible thing the National Weather Service did.
    Not so much that they got it wrong…but they lied and said it was because the people of Cameron didn’t want to evacuate. These people took storms seriously. But to lie and cover up their mistake is like spitting on them.

    Bureaucrats and liberals never admit when they make a mistake. Some things are constant and that’s one of them.


  195. 195 | July 27, 2010 8:03 pm

    [...] The Blogmocracy – My response to those who claim it is a ‘human rights violation’ to protest mosques. [...]


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David