|
|
05.04.2006
Angrier and angrier I get…
From Northwest Cable News:
Two windows blown out on I-5 near Lacey
05:26 PM PDT on Monday, April 3, 2006
By LINDA BYRON / KING 5 News
LACEY, Wash. - Two different motorists called the Washington State Patrol Sunday to report their windows were shattered as they drove on the freeway between Olympia and Lacey.
A Washington State Patrol spokesman said there are no suspects in either incident.
The latest incident happened around 2 p.m. Sunday on Interstate 5, near Lacey.
Justin Jones and his wife were driving home from an Olympia mall in medium traffic when the back passenger window of their SUV shattered.
 "All of a sudden, the window explodes with a large boom. We slow down to look, there was around no cars or anything," he said.
When they pulled over to check out the damage, they noticed a trail running along the freeway where someone could easily hide while targeting motorists.
"We were very fortunate that nobody was hurt. Obviously it costs a few hundred dollars to fix, but that's minor. Somebody could have really been hurt …glass blew inward, all over the place," he said.
Jones called police, who said something similar had happened to another driver on the same stretch of freeway just 20 minutes earlier.
And if it's someone's idea of a joke, no one's laughing, said State Patrol Spokesman J.J. Gundermann.
"If someone shoots BB or pellet gun, looking at pretty significant charges, it could have had serious if not lethal consequences," Gundermann said.
Gundermann said such cases are difficult to investigate.
Last fall, state troopers had to use night vision goggles and stake out an overpass for an entire weekend to catch a 16-year-old girl who had been dropping rocks onto cars.
The State Patrol may have caught one, but they sure haven’t caught them all, as KIRO reported a few months back:
Rock Thrown From Overpass Smashes Patrol Car
POSTED: 11:44 am PST February 20, 2006
UPDATED: 11:52 am PST February 20, 2006
PARKLAND, Wash. -- A rock thrown from a Parkland overpass smashed into the windshield of a Pierce County Sheriff's patrol car Sunday night, the latest case of someone dropping rocks onto vehicles traveling on state Route 512.
A deputy was driving on SR 512 near Ainsworth at about 10:30 p.m. when the rock came crashing down.
"(It) went right through the windshield of the patrol car, taking the windshield out of the patrol car," said Ed Troyer of the sheriff's office. "Luckily, our deputy was OK, but we're very concerned about it due to the fact this is a continual problem with other vehicles."
In October of last year about 20 people reported being hit by rocks thrown from the train trestle overpass near the Portland Avenue Exit of SR 512.
 This unbelievable up tick of violence against drivers have also hit close to home. The picture on the left shows the aftermath of an incident with my father about a month and a half ago while driving under an overpass on I-5 when returning home from the hospital to visit my mother. A foreign object was tossed from the overpass and struck dead on onto his windshield while traveling at 60 miles per hour. He was lucky enough to keep the car under control. My girlfriend is also not immune to the violence. She talks about an incident she had a while back of an individual that, from the side of the road, threw a container of mustard onto her windshield while she was in motion. Luckily she was not hurt in the incident.
Make no mistake. This is not vandalism; this is attempted murder. Its goal is to distract the driver, causing untold mayhem by creating an unguided 2500 pound missile running towards whatever is in its way at 60 miles per hour. It causes great personal risk not only to the driver, but to passengers and other drivers in the area. This easily constitutes blatant disregard for human life.
So what happened when my father when he reported it to the State Patrol? We’re sorry, but unless you were able to identify the perpetrator, we cannot do more then fill out a report. No manhunts. No casing the area for clues. No public notice.
The State Legislator needs to act on this immediately and make the tossing of foreign objects to moving vehicles a Class A felony punishable by at least ten to twenty years of hard time, no matter what these children in their “youthful indiscretions” do. Causing death is not a child’s game.
King County in Washington State will stop at nothing to tout its grand transit projects, including moving other public buildings around them against the will of voters. I can’t stand it when it hits my home.
Northwest Cable News has a report on how King County is trying to move the Federal Way Public Library closer to a grand transit center recently constructed in the bustling commercial area surrounding “The Commons” through a county bond voted on in 2004. Literature passed out to tout the bond, however, clearly stated that the money raised was intended on refurbishing the existing library on its original site in a much quieter area of the city.
It’s so amazing to me that these bureaucrats have such a tin ear when it comes to listening to voter’s intentions. Yet come to think of it, it’s not that amazing when they are controlled by the will of such a corrupt entity as Sound Transit, the region’s transit authority, whose boondoggles are legendary. All Sound Transit wants out of the deal is higher visibility to a downtown eye-sore to make it look as though the transit authority has some sort of legitimacy.
And government officials are still wondering why voter-run initiatives are so popular… 28.03.2006
Why oh why oh why does the legislature even make bills when the judiciary is just going to choose to ignore them arbitrarily?
From Sound Politics:
King County Judge Rules For Ineligible Felon Voting
Even if they haven't paid off court-ordered fines, felons would be able to vote, under a ruling made yesterday by King County Superior Court Judge Michael Spearman. Spearman has previously distinguished himself by excusing an alleged quadruple murderer from trial on highly questionable grounds of mental incompetence.
Spearman said the state law requiring payment of all court-ordered fines and fees before a felon can vote again violates the equal-protection clause in the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. He said "discrimination on the basis of wealth and property has long been disfavored."
Under state law, felons can petition the state to have their voting rights restored, but only after they have completed their sentences - including any probation or community service - and have paid all of their court-related costs. State lawyers argued that the judge shouldn't make a distinction between court-ordered payments and other parts of a felon's sentence, such as jail time.
"It's rational for the Legislature to say we want you to complete everything, as opposed to start separating out sentence elements," said deputy solicitor general Jeff Even....It...was unclear how many people the ruling will affect. But, based on past estimates, it could add tens of thousands of convicted felons to the voter rolls.
Estimates of felons voting in the 2004 gubernatorial election ranged from 794 to 946; democrat Christine Gregoire bested Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes only after a second recount. The system for weeding out illegal felon voters before they vote has been a mess.
Accordingly, the Washington state legislature last year approved a measure to tighten enforcement of restrictions against ineligible felon voting. I do not believe felons should be barred for life from voting. They should be able to vote after meeting court-imposed conditions, including payment of fines.
Voting is a privilege, not a right. Felonies carry consequences. Monetary fines are one appropriate consequence, along with community service and probation. That a few convicted felons may claim inability to pay does not excuse the whole class. The possibilities for vote fraud are significantly enhanced by adding ineligible felons to voting rolls, particularly in a state where most voters vote by mail. Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican, is currently mulling whether to appeal Spearman's ruling. To not do so would be unfathomable.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 28, 2006 08:14 AM
The idea of a felon reclaiming the right to vote only after all fines have been paid is based on the fact that the individual has to pay his debt to society both physically (incarceration) and financially (fines and fees). These are the penalties provided by law to jurist to account for the severity of the crime committed and are not supposed to be easy to pay off. It was the intention of the legislation! Why one single pathetic man in black robes who pretends he is a judge thinks that felons need a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card from these penalties based on such a weak argument as “equal protection” is just one reason why wholesale changes in membership need to be done to the judiciary branch of government in this nation, where the rule of written law presides over the land, not one simpleton’s code of truth.
24.03.2006
For those of you crazy moonbats out there that are constantly shouting out the same hum drum cries of “There were no WMD’s in Iraq” or “We needed to build a strong multinational force” or “ Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda or the War on Terror”, ABC has put a stake in the heart of these arguments. I hate to use this tired cliché, but when it comes to a MSM outlet like ABC, a broken clock is right at least 2 times a day.
A few excerpts from the article (ed: Emphasis added):
…Document written sometime before March 5, 2003
The first document (CMPC-2003-001950) is a handwritten account of a meeting with the Russian ambassador that details his description of the composition, size, location and type of U.S. military forces arrayed in the Gulf and Jordan. The document includes the exact numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, different types of aircraft, missiles, helicopters, aircraft carriers, and other forces, and also includes their exact locations. The ambassador also described the positions of two Special Forces units.
Document dated March 25, 2003
The second document (CMPC-2004-001117) is a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq, that states that the Russian ambassador has told the Iraqis that the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad, which is, in fact what happened. The documents also state "Americans are also planning on taking control of the oil fields in Kirkuk." The information was obtained by the Russians from "sources at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar," according to the document…
…Documents dated July-August 1999
Correspondence regarding election campaigns in France. This includes a document from the Iraqi intelligence service classified as "secret," ordering the translation of important parts of a 1997 report about campaign financing laws in France. It also includes a document from the foreign minister's office indicating the report was attached. The attached translated report included very detailed information about all the regulations regarding financing of election campaigns in France. Translation was done by someone called Salam Abdul Karim Mohammed.
(Editor's Note: This is an intriguing document that suggests Saddam Hussein's regime had a strong interest in the mechanics and legalities of financial contributions to French politicians. Several former French politicians are implicated in receiving oil vouchers from Iraq under the U.N. Oil for Food program.)…
Hmm. It looks as if two members of the UN Security Council were so close to the Iraqi’s that no matter what Iraq did, they would have gotten a free pass from the United Nations, and actually would provide intelligence to Iraq of our strategy and resources, just so that the people on the take could keep their cash cows.
Continued:
…A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio…
But we all know that a secular dictator like Saddam Hussein would never work with a religious fanatic like bin Ladn. Yeah. Right.
Continued:
…Document dated March 23, 1997
A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the U.N. team, including:
Removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons (proposals, research, studies, catalogs, etc.)
Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored
Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents
Removing files from computers…
If there was no such WMD’s in Iraq just before the war started, then why would there be paperwork inventorying non-existent material?
I suggest reading the entire article. It is a very interesting read. 23.03.2006
Figures that it would take the dumbfounded Main Stream press to create such a ridiculous headline.
From Barking Moonbats:
Most Ridiculous Headline of the Day
Clinton vows to block bill criminalizing illegal immigrants
Huh?
Can you criminalize illegal behavior?
Maybe I should stop reading the paper.
Posted by Mr. Christian on 03/22/2006 at 01:52 PM
For the ultra-liberals and the journalists in the audience that are having a hard time trying to find the ridiculousness of the headline, follow along with me:
- Illegal means that a party has broken an established law.
- A party that has been found to have broken the law is a criminal.
- Ergo, an illegal immigrant is already, by definition, a criminal.
Too hard to understand? I would then suggest retaking 3rd grade.
Why the Congress feels the need to redefine already defined criminal behavior, complete with existing statues and penalties, is beyond me. How about changing the existing law?
|
|
|
|
Сервис 
Справка
