California, originator of most wacky laws, is about to make the sales of semi-automatic weapons and their ammo effectively illegal, by demanding science-fictional requirements from the manufacturers. The cops, unlike the little people, will still be able to buy real-world armament, of course. And the criminals, being criminals, will ignore the law. Only law-abiding citizens will be disarmed.
I wonder how this will stand up to a Second Amendment challenge? Given the composition and nutty opinions of that particular circuit, I’m sure that it will be found up to Constitutional muster, but I would hope that the Supreme Court would have something to say about it.
Oh, and is there any useful sense in which Arnold Scharzenegger can be considered a Republican? He seems to have gone completely native along with the legislature.
…same as the old Nazis. We might have defeated them (at least temporarily) in Europe, but the same mentality is thriving in the Middle East, and has been for decades. And it makes the notion that Israelis are the new Nazis all the more stupid.
[Update late morning]
Speaking of stuck on stupid, here’s Exhibit A: Ward Churchill gives a speech. Theme: Zionists are Nazis.
Dutch Muslim youths rioted and burned cars, apparently in protest over the killing of someone who attacked police officers with a knife, and perceptions that they’re seen as violent. As the British foreign service used to say about many cultures, their primary problem was that they lacked a sense of irony.
I think that this is a pretty accurate thesis. After all, what with their enemies list, and the “missing” FBI files, and IRS investigations on their enemies, the Clintons actually got away with things that Nixon could only dream of doing. And the difference was, of course, that the press hated Nixon, but loved the Clintons.
Michael Yon reports that not only has Al Qaeda lost its war in Iraq, but that its attempts to foment a civil war have backfired on them. It may be that the incipient civil war there (which Yon was the first to note) is over before it really got started, and once again, the war opponents (who remain in denial about the enemy, and fantasize that this never was, and never would be, more than a civil war) are behind the curve. This possibility is buttressed by events like the Shia awakening.
More good news from Iraq (and bad news for Al Qaeda, and those who continue to hope that the US loses):
…in order for the advances to be permanent, something else must take the place of U.S. kinetic operations. Solution? Concerned citizens. One reason for al Qaeda
While I agree that Google’s behavior is blatantly partisan, that doesn’t excuse the continued misunderstanding of the First Amendment repeated in this Examiner editorial:
On its face, a policy that allows censorship of political speech critical of the trademark holder is a violation of the First Amendment. If Google maintains this policy, it will be handing a powerful tool for crushing dissent not only to political groups like MoveOn.org but to every corporation with a trademarked name.
Ahmadinejad had no First Amendment right to speak at Columbia, and he had no First Amendment right to not be criticized, either before, during or after his speech. And I have no First Amendment right to AT&T DSL service, or to not have it cut off if I express an opinion over its tubes. All that the First Amendment says is that “Congress shall make no law,” not “Columbia University will grant a podium and audience,” or “AT&T shall provide Internet service regardless of the behavior of the customer.”
It also doesn’t say that “Google shall not discriminate by political beliefs in which ads it chooses to run.”
Not that Google shouldn’t be criticized, and its hypocrisy pointed out on a daily basis, of course.
While I agree that Google’s behavior is blatantly partisan, that doesn’t excuse the continued misunderstanding of the First Amendment repeated in this Examiner editorial:
On its face, a policy that allows censorship of political speech critical of the trademark holder is a violation of the First Amendment. If Google maintains this policy, it will be handing a powerful tool for crushing dissent not only to political groups like MoveOn.org but to every corporation with a trademarked name.
Ahmadinejad had no First Amendment right to speak at Columbia, and he had no First Amendment right to not be criticized, either before, during or after his speech. And I have no First Amendment right to AT&T DSL service, or to not have it cut off if I express an opinion over its tubes. All that the First Amendment says is that “Congress shall make no law,” not “Columbia University will grant a podium and audience,” or “AT&T shall provide Internet service regardless of the behavior of the customer.”
It also doesn’t say that “Google shall not discriminate by political beliefs in which ads it chooses to run.”
Not that Google shouldn’t be criticized, and its hypocrisy pointed out on a daily basis, of course.