Now it’s the victim’s fault

7 Comments

Victim was bad. Victim was selling crack to sweet innocent teenagers, forcing the cherubs to beat him to death.

That is the bizarre claim of slimebag Kenan Adams-Kinard, who appeared in court yesterday and claimed that the 88-year old World War II veteran, whom he helped bludgeon to death was selling him crack, and that the transaction turned violent.

Adams-Kinard and Demetruis Glenn, both 16, are accused of attacking Belton when he resisted a robbery attempt in the parking lot outside his Fraternal Order of Eagles lodge last Wednesday night. Both were charged as adults.

There is little I find more repugnant in this world than these two shitbirds, who victimized an elderly man – a man who served his country honorably, a man who was supposed to have a peaceful sunset to his life, a man who ostensibly could not fight back.

Hell, even the defense attorney for the other shitbag doesn’t believe that pus-filled little hemorrhoid and calls the claim ridiculous!

There are no redeeming qualities in this trash. These two heartless animals (and I hesitate to call them this, because animals don’t just murder for the fuck of it) attacked an elderly man, who was ostensibly weaker than they were, was unable to defend himself from their viciousness, and eventually succumbed. He fought back – gallantly and bravely – which is more courage than these two dickdrips could ever show, when they attacked a defenseless elderly man and bludgeoned him with flashlights.

And before Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come to the rescue of these two sacks of rancid effluvia…

  1. No, it’s not society’s fault that they were black/underprivileged/victimized/*insert stupid excuse here*.
  2. No, being black doesn’t mitigate this vicious crime. See #1.
  3. No, they’re not young men with much potential to whom no one ever offered a chance. They’re foul thugs, and I don’t give a fuck how old they are.
  4. Yes, they deserve to be tried as adults for an intentional, savage, depraved crime, and I don’t give a fuck how old they are.
  5. No, I’m not afraid to call them savages. No, it’s not a racist term. It’s an accurate one.
  6. No, I don’t give a fuck what color they are, but the silence from Jesse and Al is somewhat instructive.
  7. No, they didn’t do it owing to some perceived social injustice. They did it because they’re heartless pieces of monkey shit.
  8. If that sounds racist, I’m tired of giving a shit. Shut the fuck up.
  9. No, I don’t believe they should be charged with a “hate crime,” because: a) there is no such thing – a hate crime is a thought crime, and for those of you who haven’t read Orwell lately, that’s double plus ungood – and b) because they should be charged with a capital crime – their legs should be broken, and they should be tossed into a pen with vicious swine and filmed while they’re eaten slowly and painfully (although, I’m not sure what foul thing swine did to deserve that shit).
  10. No, lawyer scum. They did not fall in with the wrong crowd. They are vomitous, shitslurping thunderfucks who need to be put out of society’s misery.

And that is all.

This is Where I get Politically Incorrect

11 Comments

I will say this publicly right now. I do not like the Americans with Disabilities Act. It’s not that I don’t respect Americans with disabilities, or that I want them to suffer in some horrible way. Not at all. I just don’t believe in the government legislating compassion and morality. And I disagree that opposing this law means I hate disabled people. Far from it. Requiring businesses to abide by certain standards (which may or may not help Americans with disabilities), developed by government bureaucrats who may or may not understand the needs of Americans with disabilities, does nothing but put an unfair burden on the businesses, which may or may not be able to afford compliance, and enriches the lawyers who just love taking these cases and sucking award money out of the victims as compensation.

Cato’s Walter Olson detailed some of the results in a 2010 article:

Thus in recent months a New Jersey jury ordered a rheumatologist to pay $400,000 for not providing a deaf patient with a sign language interpreter at his own expense; the Ninth Circuit ruled that the law may require movie theaters to provide captions and descriptions for blind or deaf viewers; a federal appeals court ruled that the nation’s paper currency unfairly discriminates against the disabled and must be redesigned (thus taking a different view from the National Federation of the Blind, which doesn’t think there’s a problem); a police dispatcher won a settlement in her lawsuit saying she was unfairly discriminated against because of her narcolepsy (tendency to fall asleep at inappropriate times); a large online tutoring service agreed to provide interpreters; miniature golf courses learned they will have to make 50 percent of their holes accessible to wheelchair users; and so forth. On Friday the Department of Justice announced that it would revisit the high-stakes question of whether and to what extent website operators must make their designs and services “accessible” to disabled computer users, perhaps in onerous and expensive ways.

In a more recent case – a report which prompted this blog post – a blind man with a service dog was told to leave a store. Michael Barnes has been completely blind since 2008, so he has to rely on his service dog to get around.

“Doc means a lot to me,” Barnes said. “Doc is not just a service animal. He’s my best friend, he’s my companion. When I’m out walking down the street, or when I’m walking through a store, Doc is my eyes. I tell him the direction, and he goes.”

That’s wonderful. These animals are beautiful, dedicated and very sweet. We have one at work, and he’s absolutely the BEST! Not only does he provide an invaluable service to his human, but he also makes the days a little brighter for the rest of us, when he allows us to pet him and play with him during his down times!

I understand the attachment. What I don’t like is that relationship fostering an attitude of entitlement that obligates and compels the rest of us to behave in a certain way.

Barnes said that he and a friend, Joseph Weaver, who are both blind and have service dogs, headed to a convenience store called Quick Pantry to get a snack on July 13th. It’s a store that Barnes said he’s brought Doc into many times before.

“The manager rudely comes up to us and starts yelling, ‘No dogs in here, no dogs near food,’” Barnes said. “We actually pulled out the Georgia guide dog law to show him that these are service dogs, and that we have a right to come in the store.”

Barnes and Weaver called police on the store clerk named Hiteshkumar Patel, but Patel still wouldn’t let the dogs into the store.

“All we want is the guy to allow us to come in, and to purchase our items. That’s all we wanted to do was go in, shop and leave,” Barnes said.

Now… I understand the ADA is the law. I may not approve of it, but I understand it’s the law of the land.

The manager was legally wrong, and the owner of the store told CBS Atlanta that he has since spoken with his employees and clarified the law to them.

CBS Atlanta went to Quick Pantry on Thursday and spoke with owner Pete Patel, who said that he has since clarified to employees that service dogs are allowed inside the store.

“On behalf of him and me, we didn’t know it was legal, that you can let them in,” Pete Patel said. “The last time, one time before they came in, that dog actually pissed in the aisle, that is the reason we said no.”

Patel has also clarified that the two are absolutely allowed in the store with their service dogs.  No problem, right?

Nope, apparently that’s just not enough for Barnes. He will continue to press charges.

“Being a blind individual is very difficult sometimes, and that is why we want to stand up for our rights as citizens of this wonderful country, and as Americans with disabilities, to show people that you cannot do this.” Barnes said. “This is something that you cannot do. If you’re going to run a business, you should abide by the law.”

So, the fact that his life is more difficult than many others, entitles him to come into an establishment with a service animal that is obviously not sufficiently trained not to soil the establishment’s floor, and have people clean up after him.

The fact that he is disabled entitles him to extra-special rights.

The fact that he is blind entitles him to continue pushing for the persecution of another American, who apparently quickly resolved the problem, educated his employees, and welcomes people with service dogs… because his life is hard.

The store owner already knows that “you cannot do this.” He has taken steps to rectify the issue, and will now abide by the law by allowing people with service animals into his establishment.

But, that’s not good enough, because Barnes wants retribution and he’s entitled to it.

And by God, he will use the Americans with Disabilities Act to make sure he gets his pound of flesh!

I have compassion for the blind and other disabled folks. If I were a business owner, I would absolutely allow service animals – with or without the Americans with Disabilities Act.

You know why?

Because I’m a decent human being, and because I don’t need forced compassion at the point of the government gun to do what’s right!

Yes, there are people out there who aren’t compassionate, who aren’t understanding and who don’t feel any compassion for others.

But is there really a law in this country banning insensitive jerkery?

Yeah, it’s called the ADA.

It doesn’t mandate that people be treated equally. It mandates that the disabled get special dispensations, and if they don’t, there’s a lawsuit in the making – even if the lack of special dispensation is unintentional on the part of a store owner or employer.

The unintended consequence?

Businesses that can’t afford the myriad of special accommodations will not open, and employers who are subject to lawsuits for perhaps firing an employee considered disabled under the ADA will likely just not hire the disabled, even if they eventually successfully ward off the lawsuit after paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the lawyers to defend them from the suit. Why bother starting a business when you must first comply with expensive regulations, and then are subject to expensive lawsuits if some professional litigant looking for ADA violations happens to stumble on your inconveniently-placed doorknob?

Why bother opening a restaurant, if some slimy pig is going use the ADA to sue you for not accommodating his fat ass with larger seats?

And why bother ensuring that your enterprise is safe, when you’re just going to get sued under the ADA for refusing to hire former drunks?

…Exxon gave ship captain Joseph Hazelwood a job after he completed alcohol rehab. Hazelwood then drank too much and let the Exxon Valdez run aground in Alaska. Exxon was sued for allowing it to happen. So Exxon prohibited employees who have had a drug or drinking problem from holding safety-sensitive jobs. The result? You guessed it — employees with a history of alcohol abuse sued under the ADA, demanding their “right” to those jobs. The federal government (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) supported the employees. Courts are still trying to sort it out.

Under the law, Barnes has the right to shop in a store with his service animal. He was prevented from doing so, and the problem was ostensibly rectified.

But Barnes will press charges anyway, and he will likely cost the store owner hundreds of thousands of dollars, and perhaps even force the closure of the store. Then no one will be able to shop there, including Barnes and his service dog, and several people will be out of a job and added to the unemployment rolls.

I guess Barnes doesn’t give a shit about this, as long as he gets his revenge!

Way to go, Mr. Barnes! If you think this will somehow gain you and other disabled people more sympathy, you’re sadly mistaken.

Holder’s DOJ is Out of Control (UPDATED WITH RANDOM THOUGHT)

14 Comments

There’s not much to be said about the Zimmerman trial. I wasn’t there, and neither were you. Based on the evidence presented, Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin was self defense. Here is what I said on Facebook after a wave of snotty indignation swept through many on my friends list:

1) THERE ARE NO WINNERS HERE. The Martin family lost a child, and Zimmerman will spend the rest of his life fighting off civil lawsuits, the NAACP and the thuglets on social media, posting his address, threatening to kill him and some probably attempting to.

2) NONE OF US WERE THERE. The only two people who know what happened were Zimmerman and Martin. And yet, we have amateurs sitting around making pronouncements about whether or not one murdered the other. FYI – murder is a very specific act, and none of you are qualified to make a judgment based on what the media feeds you.

3) THE CASE WAS TRIED, AND THE JURY HAS RENDERED ITS VERDICT. Not being a lawyer, but being a person who has half a brain, I could see that the prosecution had a very weak case. When a prosecutor tells a jury in his closing arguments to make a decision by looking into their hearts, instead of looking objectively at the evidence, you know the case is weak.

4) NONE OF US HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION TO JUDGE ZIMMERMAN GUILTY. I can sit here an postulate all I want on what I know about the case, but I’m not going to condemn the jury for their decision. They had way more information than we did.

Justice was served. The jury has examined the evidence and decided that the shooting was self defense. There was no “Stand Your Ground” issue in this case. Zimmerman couldn’t retreat with Martin on top of him, beating him up. Period. He is not guilty of murder. Nor is he guilty of manslaughter.

Unfortunately, the so called Department of “Justice” and Attorney General Eric Holder have decided that justice is only justice when the Department of Justice says it’s justice. And with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton shrieking, the NAACP screeching and millions of wannabe lawyers demanding action by the Obama Administration, justice, in this case, is apparently going to be determined by the inept and pathetic Eric Holder.

First, in an effort to tongue bathe the collective taints of  the NAACP, Holder went on a verbal rampage against “stand your ground” laws – laws that allow a potential victim to stand their ground and fight their assailant, instead of mandating that they retreat – laws that had nothing to do with this case. Then, this incompetent buffoon, who couldn’t get his damn stories straight about Fast and Furious, about secretly investigating a Fox News reporter and about snooping in the media’s phone records, is trolling for tips about Zimmerman’s alleged racism by setting up an email address where the Stasi… uh… Soviets… uh… concerned citizens can drop tips about Zimmerman’s Hitlerite KKK ways.

And now, the latest. The Department of inJustice has instructed the Sanford Police not to return Zimmerman’s property to him… including his firearm.

The U.S. Department of Justice, overseen by Attorney General Eric Holder, has ordered the Sanford, Florida police department to keep possession of all the evidence from George Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial – including the exonerated neighborhood watch volunteer’s gun.

Sanford police confirmed on Thursday that the DOJ asked the agency not to return any pieces of evidence to their owners. Zimmerman was expected to get his firearm back by month’s end.

So Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury in a fair trial. By every standard of what is right and fair, he should be allowed to live his life, his property returned to him, and left alone by the government.

But the DOJ doesn’t like the outcome, and Holder his using his authority to bully the police into disarming George Zimmerman, stealing his property, and finding loopholes to try him AGAIN!

Look, this Attorney General and this Department of Justice are out of control. Absolutely off the chain!

Let’s forget for a moment the gun running scheme that funneled thousands of American guns to Mexican drug lords. Let’s forget that Holder lied about what he knew about this failed program and when he knew it. Let’s forget that Holder was held in contempt for Congress for refusing to cooperate in the Fast and Furious investigation, and that his pal Zero had to use Executive Privilege to shield him from further scrutiny.

Let’s forget his refusal to prosecute members of the New Black Panther party, who stood outside a Philadelphia polling place and intimidated voters. Let’s forget that Holder claimed that standing outside the polls wielding blunt objects wasn’t really “voter intimidation” – at least not comparable to other voter intimidation back in the 60s.

Let’s forget Holder’s ineptitude and inability to prosecute large banks for criminal acts.

Let’s not focus on the DOJ’s seizure of media phone records, the tracking and monitoring of Fox News reporter James Rosen and the subsequent outright lies about Holder’s knowledge of the case!

Let’s focus on the fact that Holder stuck his foul face into a local criminal investigation, used taxpayer dollars to foment discontent and protests when local authorities decided not to charge Zimmerman, and now is attempting to destroy Zimmerman’s life by prosecuting him again… after a jury found him not guilty of murder.

This is not justice. Holder is a corrupt, lying, racist cockholster, who wouldn’t know justice if it jumped up and bit him on his shriveled nutsack. He should have been booted out of office after lying to Congress about Fast and Furious. He should have been told to shut his fat yap after he called the people of this nation a bunch of cowards, who refuse to have an honest conversation about race. But instead, here he is, working to ruin the life of a guy, who is already screwed by all accounts, given the threats against his life, and fomenting racial hatred and divide that hasn’t been seen in decades in this country.

I can’t even begin to explain how odious, repugnant and morally reprehensible Eric Holder is!

Time for him to go!

UPDATE:  You know… Zimmerman was found not guilty. There’s no reason for him not to be able to pass a NICS check and simply go into a store and legally purchase a new firearm.  If the DOJ is claiming they need his other firearm for their witch hunt… investigation, they certainly have no cause to prevent him from getting a brand new, shiny tool of self defense.

Romney, the GOP, and immigration

3 Comments

Those of you who know me know that I did not support Mitt Romney for President. This was largely because of the cheating that went on at the RNC in Tampa, which is all the more galling considering that Romney had the nomination well in hand; apparently his minions, like the odious Ben Ginsberg, felt the need to punish the grassroots so we have to kiss the ring of the establishment every time out in the future. Despite this, I voted straight GOP all the way down the ticket, and then returned to the Presidential ballot line, which I’d left blank for consideration. I TRIED to force myself to vote for Romney/Ryan… TRIED… but then I remembered how the establishment, “the adults in the room”, meaning K Street and the consulting and punditry class, were in the tank for Romney, Pawlenty, and Huntsman. We were told any other choice was tantamount to Zero’s re-election. We had nothing resembling a fair primary process; it was loaded in favor of the establishment candidates, particularly Romney. I then unhesitatingly filled in the circle next to Johnson/Gray and turned in my ballot. I’ve met Gary Johnson personally, a number of times, and he’s exactly the sort of guy we need more of in politics. I had no illusions he’d be elected (and have some disagreements with him on defense and immigration), but he was the best man for the job and the best candidate on the ballot.

That aside, I’ve found my opinion of Romney, the man, not to say the candidate or the campaign, improving since his defeat. Romney was right on the money with his comments about the “gifts” to minorities, young voters and other special interests and voter blocs that Obama gave out. As Ilana Mercer pointed out far more eloquently than I could hope to, the GOP establishment descended on Mitt immediately, talking of how he was wrong and insensitive, and that we must retreat on immigration, entitlements and a host of other issues and become more “diverse”. This is exactly wrong. We cannot compete with Democrat Claus. Even if we could, that would represent complete ideological surrender. People are mocking the photos of Romney pumping his own gas, but this was the guy we needed to see more of during the last two years.

The Republican party embracing “comprehensive” immigration reform will mean its defeat. The Roveian idea of Hispanics as natual conservatives is a pipedream, as Heather MacDonald, who did an extensive study for the Manhattan Institute on Hispanic voters, points out. To more directly rebut the establishment’s babble about immigration, here’s Mark Kirkorian.

We’re importing third world peasants who will vote for more government largesse and who will further Balkanize America. Build the fence wall, and enforce immigration laws, and encourage self-deportation, and end birthright citizenship. We simply can’t afford another course of action, either ideologically or fiscally. It’s just another example of why the “moderates”, the social conservative and the neocons all need to be driven from control of the Republican party.

Domestic Terrorism vice Workplace Violence

1 Comment

So the neo-Nazi piece of shit that shot up a Sikh temple this weekend has apparently committed an act of domestic terrorism.

By giving it that label, federal and local law enforcement can tap the resources of the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces, said Pat Rowan, a partner at McGuireWoods LLP, a Washington law firm, and the head of the Justice Department’s national security division under President George W. Bush. These multi-agency teams have access to past investigations and databases that may prove useful in the probe, he said.

“It’s really about the motive and not how many people were injured,” Rowan said.

Under the USA Patriot Act, domestic terrorism occurs when a person intends “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.”

OK.

But the massacre at Fort Hood, where a fundamentalist pisslamic shitslurper shot and killed numerous service members was classified as workplace violence.

Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009.  Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.

Someone want to explain this one to me?

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: