Category Archives: Uncategorized

Punishment, Redistribution, Taxation, Spending, “NO,” Repression, Removal of Freedoms, Abuse of Power, Socialism, Diminishment of American Power

Posted on by

These are just a few of the things you would experience under a Barack Hussein Obama presidency.

The most recent example? From the Orlando Sentinel:

WFTV-Channel 9’s Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. A friend says it’s some of the best entertainment he’s seen recently. What do you think?

West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama’s comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn’t being a Marxist with the “spreading the wealth” comment.

“Are you joking?” said Biden, who is Obama’s running mate. “No,” West said.

West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America’s days as the world’s leading power were over.

“I don’t know who’s writing your questions,” Biden shot back.

Biden so disliked West’s line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate’s wife.

“This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election,” wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign. McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was “a result of her husband’s experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West.”

Here’s a link to the interview: http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html.

WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, “When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes.”

Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.

“Mr. Biden didn’t like the questions,” Jordan said. “We choose not to ask softball questions.”

Obama: we don’t like you? You actually ask pointed questions? Consider yourself “cut off.”

From a 2001 WBEZ.FM radio interview (documented here on YouTube), Barack Hussein Obama said he advocated, even back then, the redistribution of wealth, what he called “redistribute change.” Hussein campaign hacks spun here. Obama said in part from a transcript:

1) But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent, as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasnt that radical.

2) You know, maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.

3) So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.

4) And how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v Rodriguez, in the early 70s, basically slaps those kinds of claims down and says, you know, that we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities.

REMARKABLE BIAS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

In a striking article actually sent to the internet under the auspices of ABC news, Michael Malone writes:

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game — with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer,” because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.

My conclusion?
THIS ELECTION IS NOT OVER, NOT BY A LONG SHOT!
DO NOT GIVE UP!
SEND YOUR ABSENTEE BALLOTS IN FOR McCAIN/PALIN!
VOTE FOR McCAIN/PALIN ON NOVEMBER 4th!
BZ
 Share

You Get What You Hire

Posted on by

It saddens me to write this but a deputy from my department, 43-year-old Chu Vue, was arrested recently and is implicated in the murder of a State of California Corrections officer. The situation appears to involve a “love triangle” if you will, as well as gangs, weapons, money, brothers. The common link is that the players are all Vietnamese. The overarching problem is with my department; I’ll get to that in a moment.

The facts are these: CDC Officer Steve Lo, 39, was shot and killed in the garage of his home in south Sacramento in the early morning hours of October 15th. He was dressed in full CDC uniform and wearing a vest, preparing to go to work at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, some 40 miles distant.

His wife, Chia, works at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, the same place Lo worked before he was killed, state records show. She filed for divorce Sept. 12, according to court records, citing irreconcilable differences after nearly 16 years of marriage.

A law enforcement source told The Bee on Friday that Sacramento police have spoken with the FBI and authorities in Minnesota about finding Gary and Chong Vue, the younger brothers of Deputy Chu Vue.

Deputy Vue, a 13-year veteran of my agency, worked in the corrections arm of the department, at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center. Following a search warrant for the Vue home, police seized five rifles, three shotguns and other items. They also took three handguns from Vue’s locker at RCCC. On October 17th, Deputy Chu Vue was placed on admin leave. He was arrested on October 23rd for allegedly possessing an illegal assault rifle, stemming from the home search. His bail was set at $500,000, all the warrants were judicially sealed, and he was taken to the jail of an adjacent county to minimize conflict.

Here is what I believe (and, as I publish this post in public, I must write that this is theoretical conjecture on my part, Chu Vue is presumed innocent and has not even appeared extensively in a court of law – but I ask that you do what I call the Logical Extension): Chu Vue may not have pulled the trigger, but I believe he orchestrated the situation and, it would appear, may have appealed to his fugitive brothers for assistance. Either his brothers were directly involved or they assisted with gang contacts and other Vietnamese gang members made the hit.

Here is where my department comes in: screening. Or the lack of it.

There are generally four overarching venues for suit exposure involving a law enforcement agency:

  • Negligence in hiring;
  • Negligence in training;
  • Negligence in retention;
  • Negligence in policy.

The Chu Vue case will come to expose the first three, I believe. Here is where I get into very hot water and must clearly state: the following reflects my opinion and is not yet backed with public fact.

In the academy, Chu Vue had some major difficulties, not the least of which was the English language. Very special effort was made on his behalf to ameliorate that and other issues so as to more accurately reflect, in the department, the surrounding community. There was talk of cheating on Vue’s part; he managed, however, to pass the academy.

You recall I indicated that, at age 43, a 13-year veteran of the department, he was still in Corrections. That bespeaks volumes. And that is this: he wasn’t cut out for Patrol. All deputies must at least encounter some portion of Patrol training. Those who can’t cut it in Patrol do, however, have a fallback position: corrections.

And here is where I step up to my soapbox and make my editorial:

I want you, the reading American public, to know one very important thing about law enforcement:

Not just my agency, but agencies nationwide are having an extremely difficult time in locating qualified academy recruits for law enforcement. The push to acquire recruits is heavy; fewer and fewer people want to make the sacrifices necessary to be a law enforcement officer.

One shining beam in the process, however, involves people leaving the military (having been assigned to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) and looking for jobs. We find that ex-military personnel already have, to a degree, the requisite mindset for discipline, sacrifice and service. But their numbers are not such that we can so easily replace those officers who are retiring.

Further, the current generations leapfrog about various departments. If you don’t drive the right car, allow beards, allow their favorite handgun to be carried, they don’t like the color of your uniform, people will leave at the drop of a hat. Because more and more they have what I call a “fallback position” and that is this: mommy and daddy. They can always go back home. And be readily accepted.

Except for returning soldiers, academy recruits have little if any cognizant grasp of the real world. Most have never been struck in anger. Most have never been challenged physically. Most are out of shape. The push is on, of course, for non-whites: females, Mexicans, blacks, Vietnamese, Hmong. My department even striates whites: Russians or Chechens are better than home-growns.

Hiring standards go up in times of plenty; they go down in times of drought. Chu Vue was hired, imagine that, during a time of drought. Sometimes it’s not “have you ever done drugs?” Sometimes it’s “have you done drugs during the last month?” People with gang affiliations are making it into the US military. Therefore they are making it into law enforcement. Witness the LAPD Rampart scandal a few years back.

But my department is no better or worse than many other departments encountering the same situation: where will we find our next generation of responsible law enforcement officers?

I know this: you are no better, generally, than your surrounding gene pool. If you dip into that pool and decide, for whatever exigent circumstances, that Persons A, B or C are acceptable because they allow a certain “goal” (not quota) to be reached, well, you reap what you sow.

I once applied, a few years back, for the position of department background investigator. I made ONE mistake during my oral interview. I said the Q word. There is no Q word. There are only GOALS. Imagine, if you will, what they might be.

In the meantime, it sickens me to think that a man wearing my uniform is potentially responsible for the murder of another officer.

BZ
 Share