Monday, March 27, 2006




Public Safety

Making Texas More Gun Safety Lapse Free:
Texas Department of Public Safety v Tom DeLay



thanks: brazosriver.com

Friday, March 24, 2006




blame the flag





The blame the flag crowd is at it again.

They say, What’s wrong with America?

The flag, that’s who! Why doesn’t it inspire Americans to defend it better? How can it just sit there, waving in its endless rippling, waiting for enemies to burn it? Why do countless children mumble a pledge of allegiance to it, almost uniformly misunderstanding the words and their meanings?

Why does it allow sweaty millionaire athletes to wrap themselves in it on international television? Why does it allow salesmen to use it to advertise their merchandise? Why does it allow corporations to use it as a logo while lying politicians wear it on their lapels?

Why did it allow the federal government to dictate its design, proportions and care?

How did we let it become spangled?

Well, strong leaders disagree with the blame the flag crowd. Patriots don’t hate a strong American symbol, and they are full of resolve, not straw!

Wednesday, March 22, 2006




habeas corpus christi




let us begin.

The concept behind the phrase, habeas corpus (you have the body in Latin), is the foundation of one of our most basic democratic principals: tyranny under an oppressive and arbitrary ruler is bad while freedom from tyranny is good. The idea that all individuals should enjoy the right not to be imprisoned without cause demonstrated by the state, commonly associated with the phrase habeas corpus, is fundamental to liberty.

Habeas corpus, in historical context, predates the Magna Carta, which codified the concept in 1215. Over time, the idea was further defined in British Law and was considered common law in the British colonies which became the United States. Habeas corpus is mentioned specifically and uniquely in the body of the United States Constitution, in contrast to other fundamental rights, which were amended to the original text and are known as the “bill of rights.”

A writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action, concluded the United States Supreme Court in 1969, in the case, Harris v. Nelson.

Upholding this tradition is manifest in order for a government to be organized to best protect liberty.

The current president resides in a fiction in which he believes he can best serve our liberty by dismantling or ignoring our most basic traditions of freedom, including his obligation to be bound by the rule of law.

He is guided and abetted by a band of criminals who, although motivated by various agenda, form a criminal enterprise engendering war profiteering, voter fraud, bank fraud, tax fraud, destruction of public lands during the theft of its content, poisoning of children, bigotry, illegal propagandizing, money laundering, drug abuse, and murder. They brazenly hold the idea of democracy in contempt, no longer even making pretense that the law applies to themselves.

When the law no longer applies to these persons, the law no longer protects any of us. When the public debate finds as its pole the question of how best to justify such disregard for the law, the pursuit of a free and just society has stopped.

The current president on the United States, after ensuring a stable transfer of power to persons outside his criminal circle of advisors and enablers, must resign. Until he does, no one of us is safe or at liberty.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006




constitutional playbook





If we just take a bit of the constitution and move it around here, and sort of forget a little bit of a part over there, and hide a few phrases up over there, and redefine this word to mean its opposite, and kind-of forget to do this part, and add in a bit of a new role for that guy and replace one thing over there, and as long as that guy does what he’s told and no one asks any questions, then once we remove those guys over there, we’ll have a helluva a play and can win the big game.

So get on board and get out there and shut the fuck up. Or else.

. . . the right of the people to [observe proper gun safety protocols] shall not be infringed.

Friday, March 10, 2006




props



heh. who do they think they are?




more good news




  • Its been weeks since anyone has apologized to a senior official of the current administration for being shot in the face by the Vice President while he was drinking, on medication, and experiencing a severe lapse in gun safety.

  • Meanwhile, in Iraq, gun safety lapses have been eclipsed by car-bomb safety lapses as the number-one obliterator of children and other liberated persons.

  • Also, it has been documented by FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, that, on the Gulf Coast, weather-related safety lapses still hold the lead as the primary killer of people and destroyer of property, well out-pacing gun safety lapses.

  • The administration has re-doubled its effort to punish everyone.

  • In South Dakota, women will be required by law to use their uteruses to provide more objects for gun safety education.

  • And while you read this, a few more minutes have elapsed since anyone has apologized to a senior official of the current administration for being shot in the face by the Vice President while he was drinking, on medication, and experiencing a severe lapse in gun safety.

    Have a gun-safety-lapse-free day!

  • Sunday, March 05, 2006




    upon further review




    You may be surprised to learn that there is gun safety protocol even in a war zone. The army just figured that out and

    upon further review,

    they are re-investigating the death of football star Pat Tillman, who joined the army to fight terrorists after the attacks on September 11. After wasting his time and risking his life in Iraq, the army leadership,

    upon further review,

    sent him to Afghanistan, where he wanted to go and kill the enemy, but instead was killed, we were told, by the enemy, but

    upon further review

    we found out he was killed by friendly fire, but now,

    upon further review

    we may find out he was killed in an act of negligent homicide, but

    upon further review

    we can conclude he was killed during a lapse of gun safety with extreme prejudice.