Thursday, September 19, 2013

Judge-‘No one should have guns’

Bad Judges                            


Connecticut judge declares ‘No one should have guns’

Res Ipsa Loquitor
September 18, 2013
A Superior Court judge in Bristol “expressed his contempt for the right to keep and bear arms’ in a closed door meeting in his chambers, the state gun rights group Connecticut Carry reported last Thursday in a media advisory. Judge Robert C. Brunetti “exposed his bigotry for fundamental civil rights in front of at least three defense attorneys,” the group explained.

“No one in this country should have guns,” the judge reportedly stated, adding “I never return guns.”

“A judge’s role is to be impartial and to render verdicts, rulings and judgments based upon law and case law, certainly not personal opinion,” the press release continued. “Judge Brunetti has clearly decided to lead an anti-rights crusade under color of his judicial position and it must end.” [Full]

We have a lot of problems, but are any worse than crooked cops and/or judges?  There's nowhere to turn, save vigilantism. Give us a summary of any case; the judge's politics; and we can 9 in 10 times guess the verdict.  If the judge was put on the bench by Carter, Clinton or Obama, make that 10 of 10, and rarely will their judgment meet constitutional muster.  Brunetti deserves to by yanked off the bench today. Give me an "F" ...



Navy Yard and Mohammed Salem?

Mohammed Salem

Raja,
I picked this up at Debkafile.  It might be something, maybe not, but it’s worth seeing.

« Breaking News »

The Navy Yard gunman self-styled “Mohammed Salem”

DEBKAfile September 19, 2013, 5:52 PM (GMT+02:00)

NBC News quoting law enforcement officials revealed Thursday that Aaron Alexis, who murdered 12 people in the Washington Navy Yard this week, created a webpage in the name of “Mohammed Salem.” The officials said “he never did anything with it” and they found nothing else that “might indicate any interest in violent jihad or even Islam.” So how would they describe the deadly attack on the Navy facility - if not “violent jihad?”
Skoonj


Wow, wouldn't that be a surpriser?  It would be to MoSup, because she'd have to repay the $5 I paid after saying right off the bat, "I'll bet you $5 that it wuz  muzzys."

Hard to listen to families your side murdered, wot

Spitting on Their Graves: Democrats Leave Benghazi Hearing Before Testimony From Families of Victims

The tiresome woman from San Francisco


                      —   stfu you berk




DIFI ATTACKS NEW MEDIA JOURNALISTS

Makeup by Bonzo Livermore
A year ago California voters gave Sen. Dianne Feinstein another landslide victory even though she refused to debate her opponent, Elizabeth Emken, who for once was a decent GOP candidate. DiFi must believe she’s in the House of Lords.

Now Baroness DiFi wants to define as a “journalist” only those in MainStream Media. New media would be considered peons with no First Amendment protections. Matt Drudge, the most famous and influential of the New Media Journalists, tweeted that she was a “Fascist.” [more  - I've had my fun.]


DeLay!





Justice Finds DeLay


Res Ipsa Loquitor

 Res Ipsa Loquitor    Previously

      A good law would be for a District Attorney who has obviously indicted someone for political gain, and the indicted person is subsequently found innocent in a court of law - then that D.A. ought serve the sentence his victim was put in jeopardy of receiving. I'd call it the Mike Nifong Canard Petard Law.

     It could also be called the Ronnie Earle Law Posted by Rodger the Real King of France | 4/18/2006 09:03:00 AM


I don't think it can be overstated how much the loss of De Lay's leadership cost Republicans - and the nation - which is why he was targeted by the Dem Machine.  Best thing DeLay can do is run for election, and when he wins,  run for Speaker. 

More Previously
  1. Ronnie Earle & Dirty Politics
  2. Ding-Dong back atcha
  3. Shooting Elephants in a Barrel



Wither the Band of Brothers?

   At The Cinema                           


The Band of Brothers; Where are they now?

Very interesting, and surprising in some cases, but what about PrivateAllen Vest?  What has he been up?


As seen
Censured Roll Over is still, er, explicit, so be aware.


According to The Guardian, 9 Songs is the most sexually explicit mainstream film to date, largely because it includes several scenes of real sex between the two lead actors (Even Jeremy Clakson alluded to it on a Top Gear episode). The film is unusual in that it features its lead actors, Margo Stilley and Kieran O'Brien, having unsimulated and very graphic sex, including genital fondling, masturbation with and without a vibrator (including even a footjob in a bathtub scene), penetrative vaginal sex, cunnilingus and fellatio. During a scene in which Stilley masturbates O'Brien's penis after performing fellatio on him, O'Brien became the only actor who has been shown ejaculating in a mainstream, UK-produced feature.  (Wikipedia)

I stumbled upon 9 Songs using Netflix (since removed, at least from instant watch) without having any indication about what it was about. I have to say that if it's possible to make a porn film that doesn't leave one feeling a bit dirty and defiled for having watched it; this is it.  In fact, it borders on being a chick flic, but not one I would suggest to MoSup ( although I think if she stumbled across it in her lonesome, she would watch for more than a bit).  Even the music began to grow on me after the 12th or 13th viewing.  Really.


Tongues are wagging here boss

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Nothing new about Hillary here, and nothing else about the other .  WTF am I missing?
UPDATE: The Examiner pulled th story, but Mark Levin (among others) Tweeted it.

Liberals change the 2nd Amendment Ad Hoc





U.S. History Textbook Guts the Second Amendment
Res Ipsa Loquitor
Author John J. Newman has some explaining to do. His textbook, United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination, literally rewrites the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On page 102 of Newman’s book (page 134 of the PDF version), the author cuts the Second Amendment in half and leaves out several key words. [Full]

The article comments say it all - here's a few

I'm a law school professor who has taught a Con Law seminar on the Second Amendment for over 20 years, was cited by Justice Scalia in the Heller opinion, and can read English.

John Newman is not ignorant. He's perpetrating a fraud. 

Like Soviet propagandists, he knows that a lie, repeated often enough, will become imbedded in the open minds of children. And, once, imbedded, no amount of truth can remove it. As this instance demonstrates, public education has become nothing but indoctrination in left-wing views.
1 day ago  Like (12) Link To Comment
WTF?? I'm not even going to object to bias of the butchery. Rather, why in the hell does ANYONE think it's appropriate to "summarize" something as short as the Bill of Rights?

Any teaching of the Bill of Rights should start WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS!! Not with the Living Bible / Reader's Digest / Cliff Note's version. The summary does violence to the First Amendment as well, and I don't doubt it abuses the others also.
1 day ago  Like (18) Link To Comment
The anti-2nd Amendment community has for a long time deliberately misread the amendment, to the point of ignoring the logic structure of the sentence.

The structure is this:

This is a benefit derived from X; the rights to X shall not be infringed.

To read it in any different context requires deliberate, intentional ignorance.

For example; suppose we said:

"Healthy bones being good for children, the right of children to drink milk shall not be infringed".

The "progressive" read of that sentence, taken as they read the 2nd amendment, would be: "Only children with healthy bones are allowed to drink milk". 

Excuse me, but you have to be a real **** to interpret that sentence that way.
via Comment by a our CheeseDanish (mmmmm) pal Hodja!



Stupid Words from a Silly Man

When Democrats are in charge                                               


Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,'

The lowest common denominator is either growing,  or this guy is sinking rapidly into that state named Delusion.  Let's hope things do not progress into the Woody Wilson stage— where a Non compos mentis presidency was kept alive by wife Edith making decisions in his name—!  Can we survive a "President MooChelle too?"

I know, that's begging the question."  The real story, of course, is that Democrats have obviously identified that this message will pass muster with a majority of  American citize, er, voters.