Wednesday, June 30, 2010


This merely confirms my belief that Obama is one of Israel's most dangerous enemies - dangerous because so many fools believe the lies about his commitment to the 'unbreakable bond' between the U.S. and Israel.

By Jennifer Rubin
Commentary Magazine
June 27, 2010
When last we heard from Michael Oren, he was giving an odd interview — suggesting that everything was just swell between the U.S. and Israel and decrying the "partisan" Republicans, who have stuck by the Jewish state while Democratic support has nosedived. Now, word comes that he was far more candid in private. Haaretz reports:
Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, painted a dark picture of U.S.-Israeli relations during a briefing at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem last week. Israeli diplomats say Oren described the current situation as a "tectonic rift" in which Israel and the United States are like continents drifting apart. … Five Israeli diplomats, some of whom took part in the briefing or were informed about the details, said Oren described relations between the two countries in bleak terms. Oren, however, has denied making such statements. …
Oren noted that contrary to Obama’s predecessors – George W. Bush and Bill Clinton — the current president is not motivated by historical-ideological sentiments toward Israel but by cold interests and considerations. He added that his access as Israel’s ambassador to senior administration officials and close advisers of the president is good. But Obama has very tight control over his immediate environment, and it is hard to influence him.
"This is a one-man show," Oren is quoted as saying.

While certainly less "diplomatic," these remarks have the benefit of candor and accuracy. As for the flotilla incident, Oren reportedly said: "Even our close friends came out against us. … Only after some time, when video from the ship arrived and was aired by the American media, did public opinion begin to shift in Israel’s favor."
One can sympathize with Oren. His job is to try, under the most difficult circumstances with a president more hostile to Israel than any other since the 1948, to keep the relationship between the two countries from rupturing. And yet, he is neither deluded nor dishonest, so he concedes — he thought, privately — that Obama is pulling the relationship apart, replacing a robust alliance based on shared values, interests, and, yes, affection with an arms-length, if not antagonistic, one, in which Israel is treated as an encumbrance to Obama’s foreign-policy objectives.
There is a weird bit of play acting going on. The Israeli government, the Obama team, and the American Jewish groups publicly declare that things are "much improved" between the two countries and that Obama is really, honestly, a stalwart defender of the Jewish state. But, in fact, none of them believe this to be so. Bibi’s government walks a tightrope, attempting to defend its country’s interests but wary of enraging the American president, who is all too eager to look for excuses to demonstrate to the "Muslim World" that he’s not four-square behind Israel. The Obama team thinks that a "charm" offensive will be sufficient, and looks to do the least possible in defense of Israel without provoking American Jewry. And Jewish leaders privately grumble and rage over Obama’s assaults on Israel, but dare not make their fury public — for they might lose access to the White House, as well as their liberal members.
The Kabuki dance, however, matters less than reality. Israel’s foes see the separation between the U.S. and the Jewish state. Iran sees Obama’s unwillingness to consider military force to thwart its nuclear ambitions. The Arab nations see that America is an unreliable ally, and consider lining up with the Iran-Syria axis, which is growing in prestige as ours diminishes. In sum, Israel’s foes and ours are not fooled; they understand all too well the "tectonic rift" between the U.S. and Israel. Perhaps, it is time, at least in the U.S., for Israel’s friends to be candid about the depth of the problem and to devise a strategy for challenging the president, whose foreign policy is so antithetical to Israel’s interests that its ambassador can only reveal his true sentiments in private


For a long time we have come to know that, over many years in this country, young boys have been sexually abused by hundreds of Catholic priests. The only reason these abuses came to light is because some of the victims finally found the courage to go public with the abuse they suffered. The Church had no intention of revealing this problem to the public or of having the offending priests brought to justice. Instead, the Church hierarchy covered up these crimes by transferring the child molesters to other parishes.

Recently, the Europeans began to learn that their children had also been sexually abused by hundreds of Catholic priests. Just as in the U.S., the church covered up these crimes by trying to hide the problem from the public. That didn’t fly with the Belgian police who did what law enforcement agencies are supposed to do – investigate crimes. And as part of that investigation, the Belgian cops conducted raids on church properties to search for and seize evidence pertaining to the child molestation cases.
Now the Pope is highly pissed off, claiming that the cops violated the ‘autonomy’ of the Church and the privacy of both victims and the child molesting priests. I don’t mean to be disrespectful to his Holiness, but with respect to the police raids, the Pope’s complaints are a pile of shit. Since the Church chose to cover up crimes committed by its clerics, the police were within their rights to investigate any complaints by victims of sexual abuse. They would have been guilty of dereliction of duty had they not done so.
by Nicole Winfield
Associated Press
June 27, 2010
VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI lashed out Sunday at what he called the "deplorable" raids carried out by Belgian police who detained bishops, confiscated computers, opened a crypt and took church documents as part of an investigation into priestly sex abuse.
Benedict made a rare personal entry into the escalating diplomatic dispute with Belgium, issuing a message of solidarity to the head of the Belgian bishops' conference and other bishops who were detained in the June 24 raid.
He said justice must take its course, but also asserted the right of the Catholic Church to investigate clerical abuse alongside civil law enforcement authorities.
It was first time the pope himself had commented on the raids, and his message to Monsignor Andre Joseph Leonard capped a daily ratcheting up of the Vatican's criticism. On Saturday, the No. 2 Vatican official said the raids were unprecedented even under communism.
Belgium's justice minister defended the searches on Sunday, saying the bishops were treated normally and that the search warrant was fully legitimate.
In the raids, police searched the home and former office of former Archbishop Godfried Danneels, taking documents and his personal computer, just as the country's nine bishops were starting their monthly meeting. The men were held for nine hours and — along with diocese staff — had to surrender their cell phones.
In addition, police opened at least one tomb of a prelate — a violation that has particularly galled the Vatican.
Police and prosecutors have not said if Danneels is suspected of abuse himself or simply had records pertaining to allegations against another person.
Separately, police seized the records of an independent panel investigating sexual abuse by priests, some 500 cases in all. The head of the panel called the raid a huge violation of the privacy of people — mostly men now in their 60s and 70s — who have lived with the shame of abuse.
Benedict said he wanted to write to Belgium's bishops "at this sad moment" to express his solidarity "for the surprising and deplorable way in which the searches were conducted." He noted that the monthly meeting of the bishops was set to discuss clerical abuse.


And having a baggie of meth stashed in your socks at the time of booking ain’t too cool either.
On PACOVILLA Corrections blog, Bob Walsh wrote: Tony Low learned a couple of things recently. One of them is that driving a stolen truck at 100 mph will probably attract police attention. Another is that if you have dope on you, and you get taken to jail, you can be charged with smuggling dope even though you had no intention of going anywhere near the jail.
By: Bob Egelko
San Francisco Chronicle
June 25, 2010
Tony Low was arrested for driving a stolen truck and found himself charged with bringing drugs into jail -- a baggie of methamphetamine that a guard found in one of Low's socks during a booking search.
Hit with a four-year increase in his sentence, Low claimed the law, which dates from 1941, was aimed at dope-smugglers -- visitors, guards and inmates who intended to carry a stash to boost their spirits or their income behind bars. It surely couldn't have been intended to punish someone who had no intention of going to jail in the first place, Low's lawyers argued.
Sorry, the state Supreme Court told Low on Thursday, but you chose to carry the meth in the first place and didn't mention it to the guard before he searched you.
As Justice Marvin Baxter put it in the unanimous ruling, "Nothing supports (Low's) suggestion that he was forced to bring drugs into jail, that commission of the act was engineered by the police, or that he had no choice but to violate" the law.
Low was arrested in Solano County in June 2005 by a sheriff's deputy who saw him driving on Interstate 80 at speeds of up to 100 mph, the court said. As he passed the officer's car, Low, for unexplained reasons, waved a water bottle that carried a law enforcement emblem. The deputy checked his computer, learned that the truck had been reported stolen, and caught up with Low on a dead-end street.
A jury convicted Low of driving the truck without the owner's consent and carrying meth into jail. He's serving a sentence of seven years and eight months in prison.


This Yankee couldn’t stand Houston’s heat, thinks our downtown buildings are full of bottom-feeding lawyers (which they probably are) and believes we’re all a bunch of rubes. Hope the door hit him in the ass on the way out.
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press Hair Balls
June 29, 2010
Joel Achenbach is the well-respected writer-of-all-things for the Washington Post; he's in Houston, or at least was yesterday.

Color him unimpressed. At least with the weather.

"I keep my car AC cranked, and all internal spaces in Houston are air conditioned to meat-locker levels. But when you step outside you're hit with that furnace-in-the-face feeling. At one point my clothes become so hot I feared they were going through a chemical reaction, some kind of phase change, and might actually convert directly from a solid to a gas. Poof: gone."

Then he gets to the empty downtown.

"The downtown seemed to empty out rather dramatically at 5 sharp. By 7 p.m. I had the whole place to myself, including these tall buildings, the purpose of which I never ascertained. I think they may be full of lawyers trying to figure out who they can sue over this oil spill."

Oh, and we don't know nothing about no book-larnin' here: "I went into a historical library and asked for some books and they looked at me as if I'd ask for live snakes," he writes on his blog.

That could possibly be because the "historical library" is for research and that big, modenr building next to it is for circulating books, but who knows?

Tuesday, June 29, 2010


Although somewhat long, every last word of this shocking Washington Times op-ed piece by J. Christian Adams, a lawyer based in Virginia who served as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department until this month, should be read!

By J. Christian Adams
The Washington Times
June 25, 2010
On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia . They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.
The federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote, and those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions of their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in one case in Philadelphia , Miss. , they were buried together in an earthen dam.
Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ's skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the "facts and law" did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let's all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.
Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal - Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum - did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation. Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it, Mr. Rosenbaum admitted that he had not bothered to read the most important department documents detailing the investigative facts and applicable law in the New Black Panther case. Christopher Coates, the former Voting Section chief, was so outraged at this dereliction of responsibility that he actually threw the memos at Mr. Rosenbaum in the meeting where they were discussing the dismissal of the case. The department subsequently removed all of Mr. Coates' responsibilities and sent him to South Carolina .
Mr. Perez also inaccurately testified to the House Judiciary Committee that federal "Rule 11" required the dismissal of the lawsuit. Lawyers know that Rule 11 is an ethical obligation to bring only meritorious claims, and such a charge by Mr. Perez effectively challenges the ethics and professionalism of the five attorneys who commenced the case. Yet the attorneys who brought the case were voting rights experts and would never pursue a frivolous matter. Their experience in election law far surpassed the experience of the officials who ordered the dismissal.
Some have called the actions in Philadelphia an isolated incident, not worthy of federal attention. To the contrary, the Black Panthers in October 2008 announced a nationwide deployment for the election. We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere, not only in November 2008, but also during the Democratic primaries, where they targeted white Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters. In any event, the law clearly prohibits even isolated incidents of voter intimidation.
Others have falsely claimed that no voters were affected. Not only did the evidence rebut this claim, but the law does not require a successful effort to intimidate; it punishes even the attempt.
Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.
Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it "payback time." Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.
Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal, agreement. However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American principles has passed.


I do know that in 1987, when she was a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Elena Kagan urged Marshall to vote against hearing the appeal of a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted in Washington, D.C. for carrying an unlicensed pistol. His "sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’" Kagan wrote. "I’m not sympathetic."

by Eli Stutz
June 28, 2010
The Rabbinical Alliance of America, which represents 850 Orthodox Rabbis, harshly criticized U.S. President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. Kagan, 50, is set to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, 90, the court's foremost liberal.

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, speaking on behalf of the body of rabbis, issued a statement explaining their position, saying:

"Ms. Kagan is Non-Kosher - not fit to serve on the supreme court or any other court. It is clear from Ms. Kagan's record on issues such as abortion-on-demand, Partial-Birth-Abortion, the radical homosexual and lesbian agenda, the "supremacy" of the anti-family panoply over religious liberties of Biblical adherents, et. al., that she will function as a flame-throwing radical, hastening society's already steep decline into Sodom and Gommorah."

Levin told that his fellow rabbis and hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Jews--are confused at the Obama's choice of Kagan.

"What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone--or some group--is going to ‘take the hit’ for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this ‘distinction’ to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews."

"We feel that Elena Kagan turns traditional Judaism on its head--from a concept of a nation of priests and holy people, she is turning it into, ‘Let’s homosexualize every segment of society. And by the way, partial-birth babies have no right to be delivered.’"


Mail Online
June 28, 2010
It’s on course to be the blockbuster movie of the summer, but there’s one group who won’t be snapping up tickets to see Toy Story 3 when it hits British cinemas next month.
Feminists at an influential magazine have accused the film of being ‘carelessly sexist’ and argue it may damage children.
U.S. publication Ms claims the seven-to-one male-to-female character ratio is ‘unfair’ and that women are depicted negatively in the movie, from toy owner Andy’s nagging mother to the ‘overly emotional’ Barbie.

The plastic doll is also called a ‘traitor’ in the film for leaving the gang to live with Ken in his dream house.
What’s more, the magazine points out that Ken is depicted ‘as a closeted gay fashionista with a fondness for writing in sparkly purple ink...(making) this yet another family movie that perpetuates damaging gender and sexuality norms.

Pairing homophobia with misogyny, the jokes about Ken suggest that the worst things a boy can be are either a girl or a homosexual.’

The magazine also points out that Bo Peep has been dropped for the third installment of the franchise, which took £73 million at the U.S. box office on its opening weekend.
According to writer Natalie Wilson: ‘Kids who grow up watching sexist shows are more likely to grow up internalising stereotypical ideas of what men and women are supposed to be like.’

She added: ‘Yes, the film is funny and clever. Yes, it is enjoyable and fresh. Yes, it contains the typical blend of witty dialogue as well as a visual feast-for-the-eyes.
‘But, no, Pixar has not left its male-heterocentric scripts behind. Nor has it moved beyond the "everyone is white and middle class" suburban view of the world.’

Monday, June 28, 2010


Diane Sawyer, who cannot hid her disdain for capital punishment, seemed on the verge of tears when she reported that the Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 that the 2nd Amendment gun rights apply to state and local laws and not just to federal law.
The court’s four liberal justices dissented vehemently, insisting that the Founding Fathers intended for the 2nd Amendment to apply only to an organized militia, and not to individual citizens.
President Obama is the most anti-gun president we've ever had. As an Illinois state senator he was a strong supporter of anti-gun laws. He knows he cannot get Congress to approve strict gun controls so he is going at it by appointing anti-gun advocates to the Supreme Court - first Sotamayor and now Kagan. We can all kiss our gun rights goodbye if Obama gets to make just one more appointment to the Supreme Court.
It is important to note that today’s Supreme Court decision was only a partial victory for gun rights. The court’s ruling left open the door for local jurisdictions to enact some gun restrictions in the interests of public safety.
As soon as the decision was announced, Richard Daley, that pompous ass of a mayor, accused the court of being an accessory to street violence and vowed to enact a series of ordinances that would make it hard for any person in Chicago to possess a firearm.
By allowing some local restrictions on gun ownership, today's Supreme Court decision will keep the courts occupied for years with challenges to the 2nd Amendment.
For us gun owners, it is extremely important that we do everything we can to make sure Obama will be only a one-term president. In the meantime, let's pray that the older conservative Supreme Court justices hang in there until Obma is out of office.


The decision by the SUCK-ASS acting assistant chief of the Dallas Police Department to provide a police escort for the funeral procession of his boss’ cop-killing son has outraged police officers all over the country. And who can blame them for being thoroughly pissed off?
By Tanya Eiserer/Reporter
June 27, 2010
The virulent eruption surrounding the decision to order an apparent last-minute escort Friday for the funeral procession of a cop-killer, who is the son of Dallas' police chief, shows no sign of abating.
Since word leaked Friday afternoon about the order made by Dallas police Deputy Chief Julian Bernal, I have been inundated by outraged phone calls, emails and text messages from current and retired Dallas police officers.
The general sentiment is that it dishonored the memory of slain Lancaster police Officer Craig Shaw and the innocent bystander who were killed by Brown Jr. in a Father's Day shootout.
On, a private message board for Dallas police officers, they are saying that a protest march is being scheduled for 8 a.m. Monday in front of Police Headquarters. There is also word on the website that a meeting has been scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Dallas Police Association's Headquarters, and that City Manager Mary Suhm is invited.
In my eight years of covering the Dallas Police Department, I have never witnessed officers more upset about a decision made by a member of the command staff. Even officers that I would normally consider mild-mannered and even-keeled are up in arms.
"While I feel for Chief Brown, this is the first time ... that I felt ashamed to put on the uniform," one veteran supervisor wrote in a text message. "I kept thinking of all those across the country who have grieved an officer killed in the line of duty."

The story has even gone national with my original blog post even getting a mention on the Drudge Report. That post already has generated more than 550 comments, and the number keeps climbing. Many of those have opposed Bernal's decision.
"I am DPD and I am ashamed," one commenter wrote.
Here's the reason for their visceral reaction: Historically, escorts have been reserved for officers who die in the line of duty, deceased officers, families of police officers and other dignitaries. In other words, it's for someone who dies under honorable circumstances.

That's why they see it is as such an unpardonable sin that a cop-killer would receive what they consider a high honor.

They aren't accepting explanations from Bernal that this was a matter of public safety.
One police association president said that's because officers know that funeral processions come down Dallas' busy highways every day and rarely, if ever, receive any kind of help when they encounter traffic snarls.
Officers have said that 10 to 12 motorcycles and at least one squad car ended up helping out with the Brown Jr. escort.
What's more, officers want to know if anyone else from the command staff -- including second-in-command First Assistant Chief Charlie Cato and Chief Brown himself -- were aware of what was happening as the procession proceeded down Central Expressway to C.F. Hawn Freeway and then to the cemetery in Pleasant Grove?
And they want to know if other command staff members were aware, did they make any attempt to put a stop to it? And if not, were they OK with Bernal's decision?
Already, Suhm has put out a statement distancing herself and Chief Brown from the incident, and promising a full inquiry, and perhaps discipline.
The head of the Dallas Police Association has called for the resignation of Bernal who said he sees no reason to step aside. The president of the Dallas Fraternal Order of Police also has condemned the decision by Bernal, who is currently an acting assistant chief.
Clearly, there is more to come on this firestorm.


It is important to note that this is the British version of what happened and was probably written with the intent to zing our police. But where there’s smoke, there’s fire! A dozen cops responding to a medical call and then tasering an 86-year-old bed-ridden woman does seem rather over the top.
Mail Online
June 27, 2010
American police have been accused of tasering an 86-year-old bed-ridden grandmother.
Lonnie Tinsley called the emergency services to his home in El Reno, Oklahoma, when he became concerned that his grandma Lona Vernon had failed to take her medication.
But instead of a medical technician, he claims at least a dozen armed police officers answered his call.

When Mrs Vernon ordered the police from her house, officer Thomas Duran allegedly decided she was being 'aggressive' and gave the order: 'Taser her.'
Her alarmed garndson, is then said to have replied: 'Don't taze my granny!'
According to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Tinsley’s 'obstructive' behaviour prompted the police to threaten him with their tasers.
He was then was assaulted, removed from the room, thrown to the floor, handcuffed, and detained in a police car.
At this point, the heroes in blue turned their attention to Lona.
According to officer Duran’s official report, Mrs Vernon had taken an 'aggressive posture' in her hospital bed.
In order to ensure 'officer safety', one of his men 'stepped on her oxygen hose until she began to suffer oxygen deprivation'.
Another of the officers then shot her with a taser, but the connection wasn’t solid.
A second fired his taser, 'striking her to the left of the midline of her upper chest, and applied high voltage, causing burns to her chest, extreme pain', and unconsciousness.
Lona was then handcuffed with sufficient ruthlessness to tear the soft flesh of her forearms, causing her to bleed.
After her wounds were treated at a local hospital, Lona was confined for six days in the psychiatric ward at the insistence of the El Reno Police Department.


Here are some excerpts from a wonderful story by Breck Porter, editor of The Police News:
The Real Meaning of Puppy Love
By Breck Porter
The Police News
June 27, 2010
"And the lion shall lie down with the lamb."
Although the phrase of "the lion shall lie down with the lamb" is one of the more popular quotes from the Bible, in the King James Version it's the wolf that dwells with the lamb, and it's a leopard that lies down with a kid, and "the calf and the young lion and the fatling together." (Isaiah 11:6)
But in Galveston, there is a Belgian Malanois named Qui, a retired police dog, that has gone paw to toe with some of the most violent crooks but now lies down with the 2-year old daughter of his former police officer partner.
It's a remarkable story of the love of an animal that was trained for the most violent confrontations, for a darling little girl who sometimes thinks the dog actually speaks to her.
These dogs have been especially trained to detect drugs, explosives, and firearms. Although German Shepherds were first used, law enforcement the world over now use Belgian Malinois dogs from Holland. Known for their adaptability to new climates and environments and their work drive, these dogs are exceptional members of law enforcement. They generally work 7-11 years and grow to an average 75 pounds. At night, after a busy day's work, they go home with their handlers, where they are a part of the family.
In August 2007 the Powers family welcomed a new addition to their home, a baby girl, Hannah. From the first time he heard a cry or whimper from Hannah, Qui became her partner, her protector and constant companion, to the point that Chad Powers came to wonder if Qui's allegiance had transferred from him to Hannah. They developed a bond that is unbreakable to this day.
'Qui' was born in the Netherlands and immigrated to Louisiana where as a pup he was trained for a life of sniffing out crooks, creeping around inside dark buildings in search of burglars, riding hour upon hour in the backseat of a police patrol car, or confronting an armed attacker threatening his master and police partner.
After training Qui was acquired by the Galveston Police Department and assigned to Officer Lucio Valdez. When Valdez was called to active military duty, Qui partnered with Sgt. Joel Caldwell, a devoted animal lover who is generally recognized in the police profession as the 'go to guy' in cases involving animals.
Qui and Caldwell worked together for two years until Caldwell was promoted to Lieutenant. Then his assignment became a supervisory one which meant Qui would get a new partner. In 2005 Qui met his new partner, Officer Chad Powers, and they would work together on the graveyard shift for the next five years, until Qui's retirement.
In early 2010 Qui was forced into retirement with the other K-9's in the Galveston Police Department. The city's economy began taking a toll on many city services including some in the police department. The K-9 Unit was cut and Qui retired to civilian life in the Power's household. It was time for Qui to retire anyway. He had a long and distinguished career in the Galveston Police Department.
Amanda Powers told us, "I was scared of him at first because he had a real bad reputation so when he came to live with us I'd give him doggie treats one after another just so he'd like me.
"He's petrified of thunder, scared to death of thunder. In one thunder storm he tore the blinds down from the windows. In the last thunder storm we had, Hannah had just started sleeping in her own room, and this came straight from this 2 year olds mouth. She said she was sleeping in her bed and the thunder started and Qui came to her, put his face in her face and asked her if she was okay then lay down beside her." Child imagination we all understand.
"Normally he paces the hallway, drooling when he hears thunder, but this time when I looked in on Hannah there he was in bed with her. He laid in bed right next to her throughout the entire storm, not pacing or drooling."
To describe the love and devotion for each other between Qui and Hannah Powers would be impossible on any number of pages. But it's there, and it's real, and it's strikingly apparent to anyone who sees them.

Sunday, June 27, 2010


The West is self-destructing on a silver platter of political correctness and atonement for past sins. Shelby Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, explains why Islam is winning its war against the West. I’ve never seen it described so well.
"Today we in the West are reluctant to use our full military might in war lest we seem imperialistic; we hesitate to enforce our borders lest we seem racist; we are reluctant to ask for assimilation from new immigrants lest we seem xenophobic; and we are pained to give Western Civilization primacy in our educational curricula lest we seem supremacist. Today the West lives on the defensive, the very legitimacy of our modern societies requiring constant dissociation from the sins of the Western past—racism, economic exploitation, imperialism and so on."


Those of us who live in flood-prone areas know that the federal flood insurance program is very important to us. It protects us in case we experience property damage and losses from floods. And without it, we cannot obtain any loans to purchase a new home.
Congress, in its infinite wisdom has allowed to let the federal flood insurance program lapse. Tow attempts to extend the program have failed because the extension bills were attached to other bills that failed to pass. When a separate bill was introduced, it passed in the House but was voted down in the Senate.
During Obama’s presidency, the Republicans have opposed and voted against everything except mother and apple pie. The Republicans only favor lower taxes, less spending, smaller government and the right to life, issues that are definitely not shared by Obama and his fellow Democrats. So, it must have been the Republicans who blocked the federal flood insurance program extension. Right? No, wrong!
Would you believe that the Republicans in the Senate actually supported the extension? You don’t? Well, they did. For some reason, it was the Democrats who voted down the bill extending the federal flood insurance program. Why on earth would they do that? The only reason I can think of is that they’re just like the Republicans.
If the Democrats are for an issue, the Republicans are against it, and vise versa. So, when the Republicans voted for an extension of the flood insurance program, the Democrats must have been compelled to vote against it. Meanwhile, those of us who live in those flood-prone areas are left up the proverbial shit-creek without a paddle.


Maywood is a city in Los Angeles County with a population of around 30,000. However, various news accounts have said its official population reaches about 45,000 WHEN ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE COUNTED.
With a large budget deficit, a small tax base, and no longer able to obtain insurance due to excessive claims against its police, the Maywood City Council was left with no other option but to fire all of its city employees and to disband the city’s police department.
How many other places in, as Bob Walsh likes to call it, ‘The Former Great State of California’ are going to end up like Maywood? And will there be cities in other states that will meet Maywood’s fate too?
By Ruben Vives
Los Angeles Times
June 22, 2010
The city of Maywood will lay off all city employees and begin contracting police services with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department effective July 1, officials said.
In addition to contracting with the Sheriff's Department, the Maywood City Council voted unanimously Monday night to lay off an estimated 100 employees and contract with neighboring Bell, which will handle other city services such as finance, records management, parks and recreation, street maintenance and others. Maywood will be billed about $50,833 monthly, which officials said will save $164,375 annually.
"We will become 100% a contracted city," said Angela Spaccia, Maywood's interim city manager.

Deputies from the East Los Angeles Sheriff's Station will begin patrolling the 1.2-square-mile city by the end of the month, said Capt. Bruce Fogarty of the Sheriff's Contract Law Enforcement Bureau. The annual cost of providing those services for the small city is estimated at $3.6 million, Fogarty said.
At a council meeting Monday night, city leaders said they were forced to dismantle the Police Department and lay off city workers because they lost insurance coverage as a result of excessive police claims filed against the department. They also blamed years of financial abuse and corruption from the previous council.
"We're limited on our choices and limited on what we can do," Councilman Felipe Aguirre told the standing- room-only crowd.
Frustrated and enraged residents blame the council for the city's predicament, and for not following an insurance agency's recommendations, which council members had agreed to last August. The recommendations included hiring a permanent city manager.
Some suggested that city leaders should step down.
"You guys had the power to change it and you didn't," said City Treasurer Lizeth Sandoval, 28, who addressed the council as a resident. "You single-handedly destroyed the city."
Sandoval, a city employee, will be laid off as part of the cuts.
Local activists, who refer to themselves as "A Group for a Better Maywood," announced their intention to recall four of the council members: Felipe Aguirre, Edward Varela, Vice Mayor Veronica Guardado and Mayor Ana Rosa Rizo. The same group sought a similar recall in 2008 and failed.


By Craig Malisow
Houston Press Hair Balls
June 25, 2010
Hoa Nguyen had no idea what was in store for her when she opened her shop, Summit Nails Salon in Missouri City, Tuesday. Generally, salon owners do not face the same mortal threats of more dangerous occupations like soldier or Metro bus driver.

But, according no Nguyen's story, first broken by KPRC, she had encountered one of the world's most frightening and powerful forces of nature: six women who all wanted a pedicure at the same time. Things got ugly when Nguyen explained that she simply didn't have the staff to perform more than three procedures simultaneously; three would have to wait.

This did not go over well with the women, who apparently resorted to playground antics as a way to express their dismay.

"They touch me...they laughed...they hit the Buddha everywhere," Nguyen told Hair Balls. (Nguyen said she speaks only a little English, so we were not able to get a detailed account.) "...I say, 'I call 9-1,' they say, 'OK, call 9-1'...they laugh."

We have a call in to Missouri City police to see what else they can tell us. According to KPRC, "the women could face possible assault charges if they are caught."
Unfortuantely, it does not appear that Nguyen was able to provide them with a detailed description. But if you are in the Missouri City area and happen to notice a gaggle of women with chipped or otherwise blemished nails, please contact the Missouri City Police Department.
Do not, under any circumstances, approach these women yourself.

Saturday, June 26, 2010


He made a gourmet meal out of his prison cellmate by frying his lung with onions, olive oil, salt and pepper on a portable camping stove.
From the June 25 Mail Online:
'Hannibal Lecter' cannibal who ate his cellmate while he was still alive is jailed for 30 years.

Prosecutor Elisabeth Pelsez said she did not seek a life sentence for Nicolas Cocaign because he was mentally unstable. Instead she requested he be jailed for 30 years and receive treatment in prison. He will have to serve at least 20 years.


That's why they call them 'cons.'

By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
June 23, 2010
WASHINGTON — Living in prison didn't stop nearly 1,300 inmates from cashing in on a popular tax break for first-time homebuyers, a government investigator reported today. Their take: more than $9 million.
In all, more than 14,100 tax filers wrongly received at least $26.7 million in tax credits meant to boost the nation's slumping housing markets, said the report by J. Russell George, the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration.
A common scam had multiple taxpayers using the sale of a single home, with each claiming the credit. One home was used by 67 tax filers, the report said. In other cases, taxpayers got the credit for sales that happened before the tax break started.
"This is very troubling," George said. "Congress created and modified the homebuyer credit to stimulate the economy and help taxpayers achieve the American dream, not to line the pockets of wrongdoers."
The Internal Revenue Service says it is taking steps to get the money back. The agency noted that more than 2.6 million taxpayers claimed the tax credit through April - claiming $18.7 billion in credits - with only a tiny fraction going to prison inmates or other scofflaws.
Nevertheless, 1,295 prison inmates were able to get $9.1 million in credits, including 241 who were serving life sentences, the IG's report said. None of the inmates filed joint returns, so the claims could not have been for purchases by spouses.
Many prisons provide inmate information to the IRS, but they are not required to do so, which makes reporting uneven, the report said.
The IRS is asking Congress for legislation ensuring the agency gets up-to-date inmate information, IRS spokesman Frank Keith said. In the meantime, the IRS plans to reach out to local, state and federal prison officials to start a task force to improve information-sharing on inmates.


By Ian Sparks
Mail Online
June 25, 2010
A British motor racing boss has been named as the fatal victim of a saso-masochistic sex session with a woman who boasts she is 'Europe's most perverted dominatrix'.
Robin Mortimer, 58, collapsed in a shower after a 'torture session' with prostitutes calling themselves Mistress Lucrezia and her assistant Mistress Juno at their villa near Brecht, Belgium.
Mortimer had paid £600 to be 'punished' by the two leather-clad women in their medieval style dungeon, Belgian newspaper De Standaard said.

Police who searched the property told the paper they had found some of the most extreme sado-masochistic equipment they had ever seen - including a vacuum machine for wrapping men's bodies in airtight cling film.
The two mistresses, whose website says they specialise in administering 'extreme pain', called an ambulance after the customer died on Tuesday afternoon.

Lucrezia, 46, whose real name was given only as Ira V.D., and Juno, 37, were both arrested and charged with assault and battery leading to death, without intent to kill.
The Antwerp prosecutor said Mortimer could have died after being given nitrous oxide, used as an anaesthetic to prolong sadistic sex sessions.
The Briton was head of the RPM Motorsport team and had been heading from Britain to Belgium's Spa-Francorchamps, where his son Alex had been due to compete in the International GT Open.

Mistress Lucrezia, who has been running her S&M brothel in a detached house in the quiet village of Sint-Job-in-'t-Goor for five years, was also a much sought-after mistress in British bondage clubs, the Belga news agency said.
Her website says she has 'performed' at Club Rub and Club Subversion in London, and also holds sessions at a studio described as Mistress Katya's in Warwickshire.
Mistress Lucrezia informs potential customers on her website that she offers 'bondage, humiliation, torture, education and cross-dressing'.
She adds: 'Sessions can last from one hour, and even up to three days.
'I specialise in extreme medical and long sessions. Beware, I am not a softie.
'I'm sadistic, intelligent and perverse. In my nature, I'm a sadist of the worst kind.'

A spokesman for the Antwerp prosecutors office said the two women were being held in custody.
He added: 'They have been charged with assault and battery leading to death, without intent to kill. '


According to The Emet Report, DEBKAfile, Israel Today and other sources, there seems to be a lot of speculation coming out of the Middle East that the U.S. and Israel are preparing to attack Iran.
While Israel, out of desperation, may at some point attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, you can bet the U.S. is not going to do that. There's no way we can afford a war with Iran, either militarily or economically. Shit, with all of our sophisticated weaponry, we can't even defeat the ragtag Taliban militants armed only with AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and home-made mortars.

The deployment of U.S. warships off of Iranian waters is just an empty gesture of saber rattling. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. And now we’re going to blow another huge wad on a war with an Iran armed to the teeth with some of the latest Russian and Chinese weapons technology? No way!

Israel Todlay
June 24, 2010
A flurry of news reports over the past week indicate that Israel and the US are readying for an imminent military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
On Wednesday, Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency reported that about a week ago a squad of Israeli military aircraft landed at a military airstrip in Saudi Arabia, of all places. It was reported earlier this month that Saudi Arabia had agreed to let Israel pass through its airspace in order to strike Iran.
The Israeli aircraft reportedly landed at the airport in Tabuk in northwest Saudi Arabia, which according to the report will act as the central base of operations for the Israeli air campaign against Iran.
Fars cited a local Saudi resident who said the Israeli presence and cooperation between the ruling local Saudi prince and the Jewish state was the talk of the town.
Saudi Arabia does not have formal relations with Israel, and publicly refers to the Jewish state as an enemy. But Riyadh is just as fearful of an Iranian nuclear bomb as Israel, and would likely resort to any means to avoid having its regional economic influence disturbed.
At the same time, Iran's Press TV reported that a very large contingent of US ground forces had massed in neighboring Azerbaijan. The independent Azerbaijani news website Trend confirmed the report.
Those reports came just days after the Pentagon confirmed that an unusually large fleet of US warships had indeed passed through Egypt's Suez Canal en route to the Persian Gulf. At least one Israeli warship reportedly joined the American armada.

Friday, June 25, 2010


While all the attention has been focused on Arizona’s new immigration law, Missouri, the ‘Show Me’ state, has shown us how a state can discourage illegal immigrants from settling there, while at the same time it gives its legal immigrants the incentive to learn and use the English language.

Thanks to B.J. Whitburn for the heads-up on this Ozarks Sentinel op-ed piece.
The Ozarks Sentinel
June 20, 2010
Editor's Note: The following appeared in our May 13 issue and is written by State Representative Nita Jane Ayres:

............this week I want to talk about an issue that Missouri has already addressed in a variety of ways – the issue of illegal immigration. I’m sure you’ve seen the headlines about Arizona’s new law aimed at dealing with those who enter our country illegally. It has been called the strictest immigration law in generations. While Missouri hasn’t gone to the same lengths as Arizona, our state has made significant policy changes that effectively deal with illegal immigrants who enter our state. Because of those changes, Missouri is ahead of the game when compared to many other states that are now dealing with this issue.
In 2007, the Missouri General Assembly approved HJR 7 to place on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the official language of Missouri. Voters then went to the polls and approved the measure with nearly 90 percent voting in favor. With that, English became the official language for all governmental proceedings in Missouri. It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language other than English. A common language is the cornerstone of a cohesive and united state and country. Ensuring that English is our official language is simply common sense.
Another measure that directly addresses the issue of illegal immigration was passed in 2008. HB 1549 requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It also allows Missouri law enforcement officers to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. Furthermore, the bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants will not have access to taxpayer benefits such as food stamps and health care through MO HealthNet. With the passage of this legislation, Missouri sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are not welcome in our state, and that they are certainly not welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of Missouri taxpayers.

2009 saw another significant piece of legislation passed dealing with illegal immigration. HB 390 ensures Missouri’s public institutions of higher education do not award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all postsecondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Department of Higher Education that they have not knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States. The bill represents another common sense approach to the issue as it ensures taxpayer dollars are not used to subsidize the education of someone who is in our country illegally.
So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it’s important to remember Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem. The laws we have on the books help ensure the rights and benefits of Missourians are preserved for actual Missouri citizens. It’s also important to remember that this country has always opened its arms to immigrants, which is why our nation is often referred to as the great melting pot. Immigrants from all parts of the world have helped make our country what it is today. However, our doors are not open to those who try to live in our country illegally. I believe Missouri’s laws make that very clear and give our law enforcement officials the authority they need to deal with the problem.


This is the first anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death. Tributes to Jackson are popping up all over television. Many channels are devoting a full hour or more to Jackson’s death and life. Of course, the tributes do not include the seamy events in his life.
Granted, Jackson was one of the greatest entertainers of all time. He was extremely talented. But the bottom line is that Michael Jackson was a sorry-ass child molester who escaped justice only because he was able to buy off his victims.
Child molesters are considered the sorriest and most dangerous of all sex offenders. Once released from prison, laws restricting the distance between where they can live and where children might congregate have made it impossible for them to reside anywhere in most American cities.
Millions of people all over this world continue to worship Michael Jackson in total disregard of his utterly unacceptable and reprehensible behavior. To honor this sorry-ass pedophile is really disgusting and makes me want to puke.


The Democrats are touting Obama’s firing of Gen. McChrystal as a ‘MacArthur Moment.’ Comparing the firing of McChrystal to the firing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur constitutes a monumental insult to the legacy of Harry Truman!
McChrystal was a tiny blip on the radar screen of popular opinion. MacArthur, a five-star general, was as popular as Gen. Eisenhower, if not more so. MacArthur led the U.S. forces back to victory in the Pacific during WWII and presided over the surrender of Japan on the Battleship Missouri.
MacArthur commanded the U.N. forces during the Korean War. A brilliant offensive drove the Korean communist forces north. But when the U.S. army captured the North Korean city of Pyonyang and the war looked like it was about to end, the Chinese army crossed the Yalu River with overwhelming numbers and drove the U.N. forces back down to the 38th parallel.
During the stalemate at the 38th parallel, the Chinese indicated they were willing to negotiate an end to the conflict. When the U.S. and the U.N. agreed to the negotiations, MacArthur wrote letters to Congress opposing any peace negotiations and publicly dared China to continue the war. In effect, MacArthur single-handedly derailed any chances for peace.
On April 11, 1951, Truman fired MacArthur for insubordination. It was a very unpopular move and it took an awful lot of guts for Truman to fire such a popular military figure. The audacity of the Democrats to call McChrystal’s firing a ‘MacArthur Moment’ is not only a monumental insult to Harry Truman, but it's also simply preposterous.


Yet another example of how budget-cutting early prison releases endanger the public’s safety.
More than 50 parolees, let go as part of the secret program dubbed MGT Push, are on the lam
By John O'Connor
Associated PressJune 24, 2010
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Dozens of parolees, including one imprisoned for his part in a 2008 murder, have disappeared after they were set free as part of a secret early release program, according to documents acquired by The Associated Press.
The parolees were let go as part of the "MGT Push" plan that Gov. Pat Quinn shut down in December after The Associated Press revealed it. While the public has not been told when they take off, the agency said Wednesday it would change that.
MGT Push has embarrassed Quinn as he runs for re-election, although the Democratic governor has tried to blame Corrections Director Michael Randle, saying he didn't know Randle was going to release violent offenders. The administration ordered parole agents in January to begin "intensive compliance" checks on the released prisoners.
More than 50 MGT Push parolees are currently on the lam, according to documents from Corrections obtained under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act and analyzed by The Associated Press.
The secret MGT Push plan was meant to reduce the prison population by giving discretionary good-conduct credit _ known as "meritorious good time" _ to offenders as soon as they arrived at prison. They were rewarded for good conduct even before they had a chance to show they could follow the rules.
Hundreds of violent criminals were among 1,745 released weeks early. Some spent as little as seven days in prison.


Logic suggests the cops must have been distracted by the lady’s tits and crotch.
Woman is undergoing a mental evaluation
Associated Press
June 23, 2010
WEST VALLEY CITY, Utah -- A woman was undergoing a mental evaluation Tuesday after police say she stole two vehicles, including a police cruiser, and led officers on a chase through two Salt Lake City suburbs -- all while naked.
Police Capt. Tom McLachlan said doctors do not believe drugs or alcohol led to the woman's erratic behavior, which also included running through sage brush.
The chase finally ended when she was subdued with a stun gun after climbing a chain-link fence.
He said the woman is in her early 30s, but her name was not being released. He said doctors need to finish a medical assessment before police decide whether to pursue charges.
The chase started in West Jordan when the already unclothed woman left her car, climbed into another car that was running and drove away, McLachlan said.
He said she wrecked that car, then ran off -- still naked -- into some sagebrush. A police officer spotted her and called for backup, not knowing what to expect from the woman.
When another officer arrived, the woman charged them both, slipped through their grasp and took off in one of their cruisers, ramming it through a large gate, McLachlan said.
That ride ended in nearby West Valley City when the woman failed to make a sharp left turn and the cruiser ramped off a berm and traveled about 50 feet before crashing to the ground hard enough to bend the vehicle s frame, McLachlan said.
"That car that she took is a total loss," he said. "I think there's a hubcap that's still usable."


First there were those three Rio Grande Valley teens failing in three inept robbery attempts [KEYSTONE ROBBERS (6-20-10)] and now there is this dumb-ass in Austin. I suppose the ethnic slur ‘Dumb Mexicans’ is an apt description of those four stupidos.
By John Nova Lomax
Houston Press Hair Balls
June 24, 2010
Oh Austin. Must your efforts to keep weird extend even to armed robberies?

Apparently so. Last week, A-Town cops issued a warrant for Jose Alejandro Romero, a 17-year-old man who stands accused of injuring a gas station attendant while attempting to rob him with a caulk gun. And just for that little added twist of weirdness, police records say that the alleged assailant fled the scene with a male prostitute he'd been partying with for much of what sounds like a long and wild night.

According to an affidavit issued by the Travis County Sheriff's Office, 68-year-old Johnnie Limuel, a clerk at the Speedy Stop on East 51st Street, told police that a man in drag -- later identified as Kenneth Williams, a transient -- had come in at 4 a.m. on June 7 and purchased a pack of smokes and $5 worth of gas.

Williams left and headed out to a red pick-up parked by the pumps. At that point, according to the affidavit, Romero got out of the truck and walked in the store with the caulk gun partially visible under his white T-shirt. Romero allegedly whipped out the caulk gun, pointed it at Limuel and told him to give it up smooth.
Limuel thought it was a joke, but Romero, who according to Williams had allegedly been smoking crack all night, was serious. He pressed his demands for cash, and then kicked things up a notch by caulk-pistol-whipping the clerk. Limuel retaliated by clubbing Romero with a plastic garbage can, and so Limuel won the battle.
Romero withdrew, his alleged attempted hold-up a failure. He sped off in to the night in the red truck. Williams had at some point been in police custody, for he told police that Romero had picked him up earlier in the evening and that the two of them had been scoring and smoking crack-rocks for hours and hours.
Romero remained at large as of last Friday, and a search of the Travis County Jail revealed that he was not in custody at the present time. He is wanted for attempted robbery.

Thursday, June 24, 2010


More and more young adults are choosing to return to the nest and live with their parents. In Italy, these moochers are referred to as 'bamboccioni' (big babies). Seems like an appropriate title to me.


When guns are banned, only cops and criminals will have guns, and the police are never there when you really need them.

In "John Stossel Is Definitely Confused" (6-17-10), I wrote: I vehemently disagree with John Stossel’s call for an end to the war on drugs. He must have inhaled too much of that pot smoke he smelled walking around midtown Manhattan.
Stossel must have been in a marijuana-free atmosphere when he wrote the following op-ed piece on gun control. This time he is exactly right!
By John Stossel
June 23, 2010
It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.
The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."
As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.
As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.
While they search for -- excuse me -- their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.
That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.
Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims', success. So criminals don't attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls.
Government may promise to protect us from criminals, but it cannot deliver on that promise. This was neatly summed up in book title a few years ago: "Dial 911 and Die." If you are the target of a crime, only one other person besides the criminal is sure to be on the scene: you. There is no good substitute for self-responsibility.
How, then, does it make sense to create mandatory gun-free zones, which in reality are free-crime zones?
The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C., passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose.
The press ignores the fact that often guns save lives.
It's what happened in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law. Hearing shots, two students went to their cars, got their guns and restrained the shooter until police arrested him.
Likewise, law professor Glen Reynolds writes, "Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. In (last) February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun".
It's impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals. Would-be victims don't usually report crimes that don't happen. But people use guns in self-defense every day. The Cato Institute's Tom Palmer says just showing his gun to muggers once saved his life.
"It equalizes unequals," Palmer told "20/20". "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you."


By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
June 23, 2010
It was 17 years ago when Jon Venables, now 27, came to the attention of the police in England. He and another then-10-year old. Robert Thompson, took a 2-year old boy, James Bulger, away from a shopping center and beat him to death. The crime horrified and sickened the general public.
Venables is now under charge for distribution of indecent photographs of children. I grant you being charged is not the same thing as being guilty, but still ……..
EDITOR’S NOTE: What the fuck is this creep doing loose on the street? I remember seeing the surveillance videos of the abduction. I don’t care that the perps were only 10 at the time. They should have been locked away forever in a place where the sun doesn’t shine!


What she got was lots of ‘anal and girl-on-girl’ offers.
By Craig Malisow
Houston Press Hair Balls
June 23, 2010
If you have a falling out with a friend or a significant other, there are a number of responses. You can hold your head high, wish the other party the best, and move on with your life; you can shoot up a Luby's; or, as a girl we'll call Paula learned lately, you can post an ad on Craigslist as that person, giving their phone number and saying they like anal sex and want to get it on "right now." (By the way, that's one of the two listed responses we don't endorse.)

Paula (we didn't want the poor gal to go through any more indignities, so we're not using her real name) was alerted last week to a disturbing message posted on Craigslist's Casual Encounters section, where adults sometimes go to find anonymous partners into whose orifices they can insert a myriad of objects, saying pretty much the following: "Hi, my name is Paula, I'm 26, I'm a 39 DDD. I'm into anal and girl-on-girl action, and I'm ready to go right now! Call me, I need a stiff one."

"I am busty," Paula tells Hair Balls, "but, like, they don't even make [bras] in odd sizes, so I'm like, whoever it was, was an idiot."

She says that, although the ad was soon flagged, she e-mailed Craigslist's administrators, asking if she could find out who was behind the ad. Craigslist wouldn't reveal such information without a warrant, so Paula contacted the Katy Police Department.
But since it was a misdemeanor crime, and the IP information would come out of California, Paula says, KPD did not believe it was worth pursuing.
"They wouldn't even ask the judge" for a warrant, she says. "I was like, 'Can you please ask the judge and have the judge say no?'"
She says she gave them the name of a girl friend she recently had a fight with, and while the police called the girl, she of course said she was not the responsible party. And in the meantime, Paula kept getting calls and e-mails from dudes who wanted to get it on, as it were.
"They were gross," she says. "They were extremely persistent....I was still getting pictures of their ding-a-longs the next day....Trust me, I was doing everything I could to save my phone number, because I've had it for a while. And eventually, I just had to let it go."
So, let that be a lesson to you: never have a falling out with a friend....unless you really are into anal and girl-on-girl action....

Wednesday, June 23, 2010


From the Houston Chronicle:
PHOENIX – Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state’s new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that Mexico’s own interests and its citizens’ rights are at stake. Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of one of five lawsuits challenging the law. The law will take effect July 29 unless implementation is blocked by a court.
What nerve! First President Calderon complains to President Obama and Congress about Arizona’s new law and about Americans shipping guns to his drug cartels, and now his country is claiming that Arizona is hurting Mexico’s interests and those of its citizens.
How about a reality check. Who the hell is responsible for our illegal immigration problem in the first place? It’s Mexico! That country flat out encourages its citizens to cross our borders illegally. Why? Because those illegals send back billions of dollars to their families, and that bolsters Mexico’s economy big time.
So Mexico, take your damn lawsuit and shove it!


Once the brouhaha with Gen. McChrystal broke, one of my friends wrote: I strongly suspect the Republicans might have a good candidate for 2012 there. He even voted for Barry, so they can't call him a racist.
Now that ‘Barry’ has replaced him with Gen. Petraeus, what are McChrystal’s chances of winning the presidency? In my opinion, slim to none.
Here are three reasons why I believe a McChrystal presidential campaign would be doomed to fail:
(1) These military guys are lousy campaigners. Remember Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004?
(2) The generals that have been elected president were all heroes who served in popular wars, like Gen. Eisenhower in WWII. The war in Afghanistan is unpopular with most Americans and if Ike were in charge there now, even he probably couldn't get elected.

(3) 'Support our troops' everyone agrees, but the truth is that with most Americans today, the military really isn't well-liked. There is still that fallout from the Vietnam War. There aren't enough old farts like me left who hold the military in the highest esteem. And that would make it hard for a general to get elected even if the war in Afghanistan was a popular one.

As for McChrystal, his image took a nosedive when, once the shit hit the fan, he made those groveling apologies to everyone but Osama bin Laden in an obvious attempt to save his ass.
My friend also wrote: I strongly suspect that Barry will face as much, or more, opposition from within than from the Republicans.
I think he is right there. Some time ago I predicted that Hillary Clinton would resign her position as Secretary of State by the end of 2011 in order to take another shot at the presidency, Barack Obama notwithstanding.

Actually though, the McChrystal affair should end up giving Obama a boost in the polls where he has been tanking steadily over the past few months. His firing of McChrystal and his immediate replacement by Gen. Petraeus will have the public seeing Obama as a decisive leader, a perception that has been severely lacking all along.


This inmate made a gourmet meal out of his prison cellmate. If this had happened in California, rather than in France, he would be classified for early release from prison.
By Ian Sparks
Mail Online
June 22, 2010
A cannibal prisoner dubbed 'Hannibal Lecter' dissected and ate his cellmate while his victim was still alive, a court heard today.
Nicolas Cocaign has admitted to eating one of his fellow inmate's lungs because he gave him 'a dirty look'.
The 38-year-old is facing life in jail for the murder and torture of Thierry Baudry, 41, in the cell they shared in the French city of Rouen.
He has been dubbed Hannibal Lecter by French newspapers, after the sadistic cannibal played by Anthony Hopkins in the film The Silence of the Lambs - based on the novel by Thomas Harris.
Expert witness Dr Patrick Laburthe-Tolra told the court in Rouen today: 'Baudry was still alive when the defendant cut him open and severed a piece of lung.
'The cut was clean and surgical, and tests have shown the victim's heart was still beating and he was still breathing when it happened.'
Cocaign, who admits the charges but claims diminished responsibility, said he initially attacked Baudry during a row over the way he kept blocking their shared cell toilet in January 2007.
He said that when he confronted Baudry, he was met with a 'dirty look which was very aggressive'.
During the brawl, he punched Baudry a dozen times in the face and stomach, before stabbing him with a pair of scissors.
The married father-of-two, who was on remand facing armed robbery charges, then suffocated Baudry with a bin bag before starting to eat him.
He first told the court he had wanted to eat his heart to 'take over his soul', but later admitted that he was 'curious to see what he tastes like'.
After eating part of the lung raw, he then fried the rest with onions, olive oil, salt and pepper on a portable camping stove which the prisoners were able to use.
The macabre incident was witnessed by a third cellmate, David Lagrue, 36. He was so traumatised by what happened that he committed suicide in another prison in November 2009.


On PACOVILLA Corrections blog, Bob Walsh writes: Wesley Brown was a state trooper with the state of Maryland. He was murdered ten days ago by Cyril Cornelius Williams. Williams was able to do so in large part because of lenient parole policies.
I would add that the state prosecutor was also at fault because charges of attempted murder, first-degree assault and using a handgun in a violent crime in a different case were dropped after Williams got sentenced to five years for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams of crack.
And the courts were at fault too when at a later date Williams received another five year term for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in an additional case, but the judge ordered this sentence to run concurrently with the first sentence, rather than consecutively.
Bob recommends the following article on this case as ‘worth a read’:
By Hal Riedl
The Washington Post
June 20, 2010
The arrest of Cyril Cornelius Williams in the death of State Trooper Wesley Brown calls for an urgent investigation into the practices of the Maryland Parole Commission.
I spent 20 years as a case manager in the Maryland Division of Correction, most of it working directly with new offenders and parole violators, and I can attest that it has long been the policy of the Maryland Parole Commission to expedite parole, even for repeat, potentially violent offenders like Williams.
According to Maryland Judiciary Case Search, available online, Williams was sentenced to the Division of Correction on July 13, 2006, for possession with intent to distribute a "large amount" of drugs -- 50 grams of crack. He got five years, with another five years suspended, and three years probation upon release. On the same day, charges of attempted murder, first-degree assault and using a handgun in a violent crime, in a different case, were dropped.
That October, Williams was back in Prince George's County Circuit Court to receive another sentence of five years in still another case, for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The judge ran this second five years concurrently with the first five and started his time in this case on Aug. 17, 2006, so that the full sentence would not expire until Aug. 17, 2011.
The Post reported that Williams was paroled on July 23, 2008, having served 23 months of real time for his third major felony conviction
How did that happen? By law, Williams was entitled to five days good-conduct time for every month to which he was sentenced. Thus, assuming that none of these credits were revoked for bad behavior, Williams was entitled to a minimum of 300 days off his five-year sentence. Allowance must be made for additional credits toward release that he would have earned during his 23 months. This figure has not been disclosed.
The bottom line is, if he had not been approved for parole and released after having served less than half his sentence, Williams might have still been a guest of the Division of Correction when Trooper Brown reported for his shift at Applebee's on June 10.

The fact that Maryland lacks enough prison space to house men who we know are good bets to reoffend is allowed to trump the risk of new crimes and new victims.
And despite tough talk from Gov. Martin O'Malley, this policy of accelerated parole has actually been ratcheted up on his watch. There are many Cyril Cornelius Williamses out there waiting to explode, and there are many more lining up to be released.
I implore the governor to order an immediate freeze on parole releases until an urgent investigation into the practices of the Parole Commission can be conducted.


With a large cop-hating minority population in Oakland, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if this asshole wins his absurd lawsuit.

By Henry K. Lee
San Francisco Chronicle
June 17, 2010
A drug suspect who was shot and critically wounded after he crashed his car into another vehicle and struck a police officer at the end of a chase in East Oakland is suing the city for $1.5 million.
The shooting happened June 5, 2008, as officers were conducting surveillance of possible drug deals on the 2300 block of 88th Avenue.
The officers saw an alleged deal taking place and tried to stop Tavares Cobb, 28, as he left in a 1997 Cadillac. Cobb refused to stop, leading police on a chase through several city blocks, investigators said.
As the driver headed east on Bancroft Avenue from 82nd Avenue, he collided with a car. The impact wedged the Cadillac and the other car against a curb. The driver of the second car was not seriously injured.
An officer ran up to the Cadillac, but Cobb threw the car into reverse, dragging the officer and just missing another officer, police said.
The officer who was hit wasn't injured. Two other officers, Christopher Cardona and Christophe Marie, opened fire on Cobb, hitting him in the chest, stomach, head, groin and both hands. Despite being shot, he hit the gas and tried to head west on Bancroft before finally running into a fence near St. Benedict's Catholic Church.
In a suit filed June 7 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Cobb said Cardona, who shot first, had opened fire "without warning or provocation," prompting Cobb to drive away because he was in "fear for his life."
No guns were found in the Cadillac, the suit said. But drugs were discovered in the car, and Cobb was later convicted of a drug-related crime.
Cobb, who is represented by Oakland attorneys John Burris and Adante Pointer, said he suffered "physical disfigurement" and emotional distress and wants the city to pay him $1.5 million in damages.
The complaint names the city, then-Police Chief Wayne Tucker, Cardona and Marie as defendants. The city has not responded to the suit in court


Gen. Stanley McChrystall, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is suffering from the same foot-in-mouth disease as Rep. Joe Barton. While Barton will remain in Congress and retain his committee posts, McChristal could be destined for an early military retirement. I’d love to be a fly on the wall when the good general appears in the White House situation room to face the president and the joint chiefs of staff. CAREER KAPUT.

This morning on the Today show, Dan Goure, Vice-President of the conservative Lexington Institute, told Matt Lauer that "What you are seeing in the McChrystal behavior and his staff is a broken command structure from the top. This is a President who has a dysfunctional organization running his war. It’s not a "Team of Rivals," it’s a team of 9-year-olds, and something needs to be done about that – not just Stanley McChrystal."
Whatever happens to Gen. McChrystal, his remarks and those of his aides strongly indicate that the military holds Obama and his national security team in contempt.
Here are some highlights from the Telegraph:
In THE RUNAWAY GENERAL, a profile in the magazine Rolling Stone, no-nonsense Gen. McChrystal is described as being 'disappointed' in his first Oval Office meeting with Mr Obama, noting the president looked 'uncomfortable and intimidated' by a roomful of military personnel.

McChrystal also joked sarcastically about preparing to answer a question, referring to Joe Biden, the Vice President, known as a sceptic of the commander's war strategy, and imagined ways of "dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner."
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" Gen McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?" the article quotes him as saying.
"Biden?' suggests a top adviser. 'Did you say: Bite Me?"
McChrystal also told the magazine that he felt "betrayed" by the US ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, in a White House debate over war strategy last year.
McChrystal also derides the hard-charging top US envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke.
"Oh, not another email from Holbrooke," Gen McChrystal said, looking at his messages on a mobile phone. "I don't even want to open it."
And an unnamed McChrystal adviser says in the article that the general came away unimpressed after meeting with Barack Obama in the Oval Office a year ago.
"It was a 10-minute photo op. Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was ... he didn't seem very engaged," the adviser said.
His aides are portrayed as intensely loyal to Gen McChrystal while dismissive of the White House and those who question their commander's approach.
One aide calls the national security adviser, Jim Jones, a retired general, a "clown" who is "stuck in 1985."

Tuesday, June 22, 2010


According to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), several Lebanese ships purporting to send ‘humanitarian aid’ is set to leave Lebanon for Gaza. The blockade running flotilla leader Yasser Kashlak calls for sending the "European garbage leftovers" in Israel back to "their lands."

By ‘European garbage leftovers’ Kashlak is obviously referring to the survivors of the Holocaust. And by ‘their lands’ he obviously means Poland and Germany.
When longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas told a rabbi that the Jews must "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Poland or Germany, she was just making one of many anti-Semitic statements this daughter of Lebanese immigrants has made over the years. I don’t know whether Kashlak got his inspiration from Thomas or vise versa. In any event, they’re nothing more than two peas in a pod.


I don’t know what it is about the children of police officers. Show me a cop with several children and you’ll probably find that at least one of them is all fucked up. One of my own children is an alcoholic and crackhead. Because we constantly come in contact with the dregs of society, could we be driving our children away by being overly protective and too strict?
By Scott Goldstein, Tanya Eiserer and Rudolph Bush
The Dallas Morning News
June 21, 2010
LANCASTER – A police officer and two other men, including Dallas Police Chief David Brown's adult son, were fatally shot Sunday night at an apartment complex.
The 37-year-old Lancaster officer was responding to a report of a shooting about 6 p.m. at the complex in the 900 block of River Bend Drive near West Pleasant Run Road in southern Dallas County.
"Officers responded to the apartment complex and started looking for the shooter," said Kim Leach, a Dallas County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman. "At the time, the suspect turned and shot one of the officers, killing him. Another officer returned fire at the suspect and shot and killed him."
Dallas police officials confirmed late Sunday night that 27-year-old David O'Neal Brown Jr. was among the dead. It was unclear whether he was shot in the initial incident or in the officer-involved shooting. The other man who was killed was identified as 23-year-old Jeremy Jontae McMillan, the Dallas County Medical Examiner's office said early Monday morning.
The officer's name was not released late Sunday night. Lancaster Police Chief Keith Humphrey said the officer, a father of two, had been on the force for five years and that he was the department's first officer fatally shot in the line of duty.
"I just heard lots of quick shots – you know, like, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, you know – that's all I heard," said River Bend apartments resident Pat Miles. "I jumped down on the floor."
There appeared to be three crime scenes in different areas of the apartment complex. At one scene, a vehicle was covered in blue tarp and an unmarked police car could be seen a short distance away.
A second scene, near a complex pool, appeared focused on a red sport utility vehicle. The third scene, at the rear of the complex, was centered on a white four-door vehicle that appeared to have crashed next to a Dumpster.
In 2003, David Brown Jr. was arrested on suspicion of selling marijuana in Waxahachie. He pleaded no contest and was convicted of a misdemeanor.


Two kinds of seminars are being conducted in several locations along the Gulf Coast from Louisiana to Florida in the aftermath of the BP oil spill disaster. They are being conducted for or by Bottom-Feeders eager to get their grubby hands on BP’s billions.
In one type of seminar, experienced tort litigators are teaching lawyers who have paid big bucks to learn how to successfully sue the oil giant. In the other type, lawyers are conducting ‘seminars’ for potential plaintiffs in an obvious attempt to solicit a vast pool of clients.
With billions of dollars to be made, lawyers are fighting each other like a pack of hungry hyenas fighting over their prey - in this instance people who may want to sue BP. And of course, they are not above soliciting clients whose claims are dubious at best. There is no end to which these Bottom-Feeders won’t go. Some lawyers are even planning to file civil racketeering actions "alleging a corporate conspiracy with the Bush administration."

"First the Spill, Then the Lawsuits" is an article by John Schwartz which was published in the June 10th issue of The New York Times. Here are some excerpts from that Times article:
"Oil spill damages? You May Be Entitled to Compensation," reads a billboard in LaFourche Parish, Louisiana.
It is just one of the tactics lawyers are using to sign up clients to sue BP, along with running advertisements on Gulf Coast television stations, buying Internet addresses like, and holding informational seminars — with free food and drinks — for those who feel the oil company owes them something.
Lawyers across the nation have filed nearly 200 lawsuits so far related to the April 20 oil disaster, including death and injury claims for those aboard the rig, claims of damage and economic loss for people whose livelihoods are threatened by the slick, and shareholder suits over BP’s plunging stock. Cases have even been filed on behalf of the oil-coated fish and birds. Lawyers also plan to file a civil racketeering action alleging a corporate conspiracy with the Bush administration.

Seasoned Texas litigators like Brent W. Coon, who fought BP over the 2005 plant explosion in Texas City, are likely to be deeply involved, as will experts in mass tort litigation from around the country who have taken part in enormously complex suits involving tobacco, pharmaceuticals, accelerating Toyotas and defective Chinese drywall.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers are eager to fight the oil giant, just as soon as they get past fighting one another.
They are still involved in the scrum at the beginning of most multidistrict litigation, trying to get the largest number of clients and earliest filings in hopes of winning influence in steering the consolidated litigation.
Mass tort litigators and the specialists do not think highly of each other. Mr. Smith, an environmental litigator in New Orleans who has sued oil companies for much of his career, scoffs at the generalist approach to mass tort lawyering. "If you need brain surgery, you don’t go to an orthopedic surgeon," he said.
The mass tort litigators do not pretend to be experts in every field of law required in every case. Asked whether he had experience in the arcane maritime law involved in the spill, Stephen A. Sheller, a mass tort specialist from Philadelphia, said, "I go on a cruise boat occasionally."
But the mass tort lawyers argue that their experience in prior multidistrict cases is essential to building the ad hoc law firm that will take on the large defense firms that the corporations retain.
"That’s the David-and-Goliath dynamic," said Richard J. Arsenault, a lawyer in Alexandria, La., who represents plaintiffs in many BP cases.
The question that is likely to dominate much of the litigation, wherever it lands, is the extent of liability for BP and the companies it worked with.
The most straightforward cases are those involving direct impact — compensation to the families of the dead and wounded on the rig, and the effect of the spill on people like commercial boat operators, fishermen and others whose livelihood could be destroyed, and landowners whose property is fouled.
Beyond those cases, there are shades of gray, including for businesses that have not been touched by oil, but still feel its impact.

Monday, June 21, 2010


Things must reallyy be going to hell when Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are abandoning the Obama ship. But then Rep. Joe Barton and other Republican idiots are doing their very best to save the Obama ship from sinking. Meanwhile, the Republican ship is in danger of going under too if it keeps on listing way over to the starboard side.

Washington Examiner Editorial
June 17, 2010

President Obama's Oval Office speech Tuesday marked the end of an era -- an era in which at least half the population believed any crisis could be defused by one man's supposed rhetorical genius and personal charisma. The derisive reception of President Obama's Tuesday night speech from the Oval Office on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill makes it clear that Obama's sweet voice no longer suffices, not even for his biggest boosters.

The thrill that Obamian rhetoric once sent up the leg of MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews is apparently gone. Obama's repeated references to Energy Secretary Steven Chu's Nobel Prize, Matthews said, now make him want to "barf." He compared Obama with former President Carter. Host Keith Olbermann, who normally wouldn't hesitate to lavish praise on Obama for coughing, was almost as blunt. "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days," he said. Even Howard Fineman, a font of Washington conventional wisdom and a huge fan of the president, suggested that Obama wasn't acting like a commander in chief.

All three liberal commentators agreed: The speech contained little substance and far too few specifics. Even Obama's fans are catching on to a key feature of his political success. Biographer David Mendell described it before Obama's election as his "his ingenious lack of specificity. ... While talking or writing about a deeply controversial subject, he considers all points of view before cautiously giving his own often risk-averse assessment, an opinion that often appears so universal that people of various viewpoints would consider it their own." Now that a crisis is afoot, such hedging no longer helps Obama become all things to all men. Instead, it makes him appear unprepared. He is once again the state senator who voted "present" 130 times, and who on at least one occasion was present and near the Senate chamber but absented himself from a controversial vote.

The same day Obama spoke, a new poll from the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling found that 50 percent of Louisianans think Obama's response to the spill is poorer than his predecessor's response to Hurricane Katrina. The tainted, oily tide has turned on the inexperienced man whom Americans placed in the Oval Office based on hopes and dreams and little else.