:: ConservativeDrink.com - Conservative Politics Thinking - ::

Waterloo and Personal Attacks?

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:35:00 +0000

Recently, Senator Jim DeMint stated, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

Is that a personal attack as some, such as Shreveport Councilman Calvin Lester, have suggested? Why of course not. If you read any of the history of Napoleon and the Battle of Waterloo, you can immediately see several similarities.

First, if the BO Train were stopped, it would be a decisive defeat for the tactics used - primarily sweeping through legislation in a blitzkrieg manner. Second, it BO is attempting to push this health care "reform" through before the public becomes fully mobilized - much like Napoleon tried to attack before his opposition was mobilized.

"No one wants to tell the speaker (Nancy Pelosi) that she's moving too fast, and they damn sure don't want to tell the president," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

Let's face it - if Charlie Rangel thinks spending legislation is being rushed, then BO has a BIG problem.

I don't trust the government, especially the Feds, to get anything right except complicating our lives and freedoms and squandering our tax dollars. How can we trust them to get health care right?

By the way, why do people think that health care is a right? I agree that the health insurance system needs some oversight and reform of some sort, but I pay for my health care - and don't expect anyone else to pay for mine.

Cedric Glover Controversy - NRA Bumper Stickers

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:11:00 +0000

---------------
NRA Stickers
---------------
In my previous blog post, I mentioned that I thought Robert Baillio was profiled rather than just pulled over for failure to use his turn signals. Well, let me offer some clarification and some proof.

First, the complete police video does show Robert failing to use his turn signal while changing lanes and making a right-hand turn on Milam Street - so that is not debatable anymore. I would like to mention that most police officers constantly fail to use their turn signals during non-emergency driving too, but that is another discussion. However, if you actually read my article, I said this:

Then the officer marched over Robert's truck, removed the weapon, unloaded it, and temporarily seized it. This just smacks of both profiling and unreasonable search and seizure.

I did not say that the officer profiled him for the traffic stop. The officer profiled him for the search and seizure. Still don't believe me?

Baillio: When you said "have i got a handgun?" - you ask everybody that?
Officer: No. Not everybody. Its just, you know, you've got some stickers. Especially when you've got an NRA sticker. Anybody that has an NRA sticker needs to have a gun. If they don't have a gun they'd better get one.

Do what? I'm glad that according to Mayor Cedric Glover the officer is a member of the NRA. I'm also glad that he apparently thinks anyone with an NRA sticker should have a gun.

What concerns me (and a lot of other people) is that he illegally searched and temporarily seized the weapon because of the NRA sticker!

------------------
Arizona v. Gant
------------------

Now Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover can try to continue and spin this anyway that he wants. After all, he is a politician. I don't care if he thinks this is a mark on the "next great city of the south". It is a mark and a bad one - that was caused by Cedric Glover's remarks after the fact. Then you interview Ed Jones, the city attorney, and he cites a legitimate reason for the officer to ask about a weapon in the vehicle. Ok, I agree with that too, but the problem is that the officer searched the vehicle without probably cause, an arrest, or a warrant.

Robert had the legitimate and legal right to refuse a vehicle search, but the officer did not give him the opportunity. That put Robert in the odd predicament of trying to prevent the officer from searching or arguing with the officer. Guess where that would have probably led?

According to KSLA 12's story, an officer can search a person if he believes a crime has been committed. For an officer's own protection, they can also frisk the outer clothing if they believe the suspect is armed. This is known as a "Terry Stop". In the case of Robert Baillio, the traffic stop was for a civil infraction, which is not considered a crime, and thus excludes searching of the vehicle.

Maybe KSLA should have done a little better homework and read up on Arizona v. Gant. In the 2008 SCOTUS made a decision that requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

So let's look at the common thread between a Terry Stop, Arizona v. Gant, and even Atwater v. City of Lago Vista - you must have an ARRESTEE to search beyond a pat-down. What part of that doesn't Cedric Glover, the Shreveport Police Department, and their city attorney seem to understand? You must have an arrest to search beyond a pat-down.

More References:
Brendlin v. California

Search Incident to Arrest

United States v. Robinson

From the Mouths of Officers - Think they are on our side as citizens?
Arrest: to deprive someone of their liberty....Short and sweet
An arrest is a state of mind in the eyes of the detainee.

------------------
Open Mouth - Insert 3rd Foot
------------------

Mayor Cedric Glover: ...I'm personally comfortable with what I said and how I said it...

Hey Mayor - why don't you admit the policy mistake and take efforts to correct it? We don't care about your personal comfort. We care about your understanding of the law, the Louisiana State Constitution, and the US Constitution. How about standing up for the citizens of Shreveport who elected you - and even those that didn't vote for you?

Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover Controversy - KSLA Coverage

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:24:00 +0000

This continues to roll on, and Glover keeps putting his foot further in his mouth.

Video Link - Click Here

KSLA Channel 12 covered the story (finally after I emailed them), and Glover contends he is "proud" of the statements he made. Now how does that square with his statement to KTBS 3 that he was "taken out of context"? Which is it Cedric Glover - are you proud or out of context?

KSLA also spun it as a "knock on the next great city of south". Right. This is a knock on Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover. I bet the reporter got that quote right out of Glover's mouth. Great job on originality and in-depth reporting.

And one more thing - what is the deal with both KTBS and KSLA claiming they tried to contact Robert, and he didn't return the calls? I just spoke to Robert and neither station has tried to call him at home, work, or mobile. Come on guys.

Also, it is funny that Glover is trying to spin this as a negative to the Shreveport Police Department. It doesn't take an attorney or Constitutional scholar to figure out this statement:

To be absolutely clear: This issue is about the SPD Policies and about your erroneous statements, Mayor Cedric Glover.

KSLA got it partially right that you are not allowed to keep a weapon on your person or in close proximity; however, as the video clearly shows, Robert was not in close proximity to the weapon at all. Again, the officer allowed Robert to return to his vehicle and travel on to Nan-King Restaurant. If the officer was interested in his safety, why would he let Robert back in the vehicle where there possibly could have been another weapon? Again - those are red herrings to distract from the bigger picture which Glover made crystal clear.

As a matter of fact, I would argue that it is stupid for an officer to even ask the question. If I'm an armed criminal, I'm not going to be willing to divulge that information. I'm going to keep the gun hidden and out of sight. That's as dumb as the "Gun Free Zone" stickers on schools. Think armed criminals are going to follow those stickers?

Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover - Rights Suspended Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:46:00 +0000

Well the situation with Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover's comments about "your rights are suspended" has continued from a simmer to a slow boil. There are several blogs and forums that have now caught on, and it was even on the Moon Griffon Radio Show (about 1 hr 5 mins into mp3).

KTBS Channel 3 ran a story on it including a sort-of retraction from Mayor Glover. The funny thing is that Glover tries to say he was taken out of context. That's absurd! You can read the full text and watch the full conversation for yourself.

One of the problems is that Shreveport Mayor Glover assumes that Robert Baillio's weapon was on his person. We all know what happens when we "assume" something right?

Glover: I also know that my right to continue to holster my pistol or otherwise have it within my reach and control has been suspended in the interest of my safety, the officers and the public.

Source: http://www.votetherecord.com/?p=1577

If you read Glover's response to Matt with VoteTheRecord.com, you can see that Mayor Cedric Glover is also very arrogant. "Flair for the dramatic..."? Give me a break. That is borderline elitism.

As you can see in the police video, the officer went to Robert's truck, performed an illegal search and seizure and confiscated a weapon that was not easily within Robert's reach nor on his person. The officer's politeness and demeanor are not the issue, although his handling of discharging live ammo on the street should be. The issue is the Shreveport Mayor's policy - one that Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover states repeatedly is explained to each and every officer.

I was in Academy Sports a few days ago buying some .223 ammo and started discussing the issue with one of the gun counter guys. We had a nice discussion, but this guy stated "I'm kinda comfortable with seizing weapons in the interest of getting the drug dealers." I almost went into shock. Do what? That is a very dangerous path to travel!

Many of the posts and comments on this issue are missing the bigger point - INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

As a glaring example, you can see in this highlight of the Shreveport Police Procedure SPD 602.03 - officers are required to "Immediately identify yourself and advise the driver of the reason for the stop."

The officer clearly did not do this as the video shows. He first asked about weapons, for no apparent reason other than some pro-gun bumper stickers, then approached the truck, and illegally searched and seized the weapon. As much as I hate to say it, sounds like Robert needs to contact the ACLU on this one.

In the end, Glover is starting to get a lot of heat on this issue, and I hope it continues to increase. We simply cannot have a mayor of any city whose line of thinking is so flawed, and he won't admit his mistake.

The next Shreveport Mayoral Election is in 2010. Time to make Cedric Glover a one-term mayor. Time for citizens to stand up for our rights.

Our Rights are Suspended by Mayor Cedric Glover

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:26:00 +0000

WATCH THE VIDEO ----- Watch/listen to this first!

Police Video of Weapon Seizure

GunTalk Magazine Podcast - Robert's 1st Interview

What Happened - by Robert Baillio

KTBS Channel 3 Story - Video

Full Text of the Glover Interview - Corresponds to the Video

MP3 File - Glover Interview (same audio track as video - corresponds to full text)

YouTube Video - Part 1 (for iPhone users)
YouTube Video - Part 2 (for iPhone users)

This situation almost defies sanity. Fortunately, we have audio to go along with this post and a transcript of the audio. Please read on and then listen to the audio at the end. You just won't believe what is said by the Mayor of a major southern U.S. city.

According to Mayor Cedric Glover of Shreveport, LA, when you are stopped by the police department, your "rights are suspended." That's right - even if the stop is a traffic violation - your rights as a citizen have been suspended. Huh?

Recently, a friend of mine was stopped for allegedly failing to use a turn signal. Sounds simple enough. Here is where it gets interesting.

One of the first things out of the officer's mouth: "Do you have any weapons in your vehicle?"

He did not initially ask for a name, registration, or proof of insurance. He asked if Robert Baillio was armed. If that isn't a case of profiling, then I don't know what is. The picture clearly shows the bumper stickers on Robert's truck windows. Failure to use a turn signal? Sure it was.

Robert was trying to be polite and cooperative and responded, "sure I do."

Then the officer marched over Robert's truck, removed the weapon, unloaded it, and temporarily seized it.

This just smacks of both profiling and unreasonable search and seizure. It is debatable whether Robert actually used his turn signal or not which is a traffic violation at worst. There was zero probable cause for a search and seizure. There was zero indication that Robert Baillio had been involved in any sort of crime. It is legal in the state of Louisiana to carry a loaded weapon in a vehicle. Robert's gun is registered. He has a concealed weapons permit. Robert made no attempt to hide anything, and was courteous to the officer.

The officer asked Robert if he was a member of the NRA.

Do what? What does that have to do with a failure to use a turn signal violation? Why would a Shreveport Police Officer need to know that?

The officer never issued Robert a ticket. As a matter of fact, he even followed Robert to travel 2 blocks to Nan King Chinese Restaurant so Robert's could get his take-out Chinese food before they closed. The officer followed him there and finished the traffic stop in the parking lot!

If Robert was so much a threat with his weapon, why was he even allowed to get back into his vehicle?

See the point?

-------------------
It's Glover's Policy - and it needs to be rejected by citizens
------------------

Here is where it gets more interesting. This problem is a systemic one that starts at the highest level of the Shreveport city government. No, I'm not a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist either. Mayor Cedric Glover states very clearly and repeatedly that the policy is in place.

Mayor Cedric Glover: Your rights have been suspended.

He stated that fact 11 times in the 19 minute phone conversation. This was not a slip of the tongue, and he did not mis-speak. Mayor Cedric Glover meant what he said.

----------------------
Anti-Gun Group
----------------------

Did you know that Glover is a member of the "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" group - headed by Michael Bloomberg from New York? Can someone define exactly what an illegal gun looks like? Maybe a true fully-automatic weapon is illegal as defined by law; however this group is obviously against any gun.

The polarizing rhetoric of gun politics on all sides only obscures the tragic reality we see every day on our streets: violent criminals with easy access to firearms.

Well if they can see the violent criminals, why aren't they arresting them? It is all semantics - the guns aren't illegal at all. The "violent criminals" who use them are acting illegally. If these mayors think they can find the guns, then they can certainly find the owners - the violent criminals.

Read Part 2 Here

**Edited 6-15-09:
Removed text transcript - made thread to long
Full Text of the Glover Interview - Corresponds to the Video

Blog Coverage Has Started

http://mybossier.blogspot.com/2009/06/shreveport-mayor-says-that-when-police.html

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2009/06/totalitarianism-in-one-city-shreveports.html

http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=95&cpage=3#comment-422

Moon Griffon Show (listen at 1 hr 5 mins)

http://www.talk540.com/shows/moon/moonwed.mp3

And you thought the Bush Administration's Wiretaps were bad?

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 02:45:00 +0000

There is a bill making it's way through the Senate that should alarm everyone who uses technology and the Internet - even if it is just for email. Thank goodness the EFF is tracking this one too.

Here's a scenario:

There is a national emergency - say a multiple terrorist strike - and you are attempting to connect to your friends and family through any means necessary. In todays age, that means email, Twitter, and Facebook. You are trying to get the latest in information, and the most efficient route is via the various RSS feeds for news. The only problem - you can't. The President has shut it down.

Think I'm kidding? Well, the "guardians of civil liberties" (aka Liberals) are trying to push through a bill that would allow that to happen. The President would basically have the authority to pull the plug and seriously invade our civil liberties - all in one fell swoop.

The Secretary of Commerce— shall have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access…

Without regard to any law? Give me a break.

Read up and contact your legislators - NOW!

S. 773: 111th Congress
A bill to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-773

Teenagers at the Movie Theater Get It

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:15:00 +0000

Yesterday, I did some "family time" by taking Genia and the twins to see "Race to Witch Mountain" at the Regal Boardwalk movie theater. Watching DVD's is fine, but there is just something about seeing a movie on the big screen that is better. Of course the boys wanted some snacks - specifically some chocolate dots.

They cost me $4.25 each for some ice cream dipped in chocolate. Ouch! But they were good! Here is the funny thing. There were 2 teenagers working the counter - a young white girl and a young black gentleman. The girl commented that the price of the dots had gone up.

The young guy responded, "Yeah, the minimum wage is going up so the cost of snacks is too."

My jaw almost hit the floor! I congratulated him for knowing the basics of economics: when the cost of goods sold is increased, the selling price will typically be increased to close the gap on margins.

The young man responded again, "Yeah, I know. It just drives costs up for everyone so we don't really get a raise."

Now, if a young black teenage guy gets it (who is not the typical demographic to respond negatively to minimum wage increases), then why can't everyone else?

Note: I only mention race because it is relevant to demographics, voting preferences, etc.

Why is the bust flap important?

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:55:00 +0000

Recently, Obama removed a bust of Winston Churchill (on loan from Tony Blair) from the Oval Office and shipped it back to England. He replaced it with a bust of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr.

While I'm a pretty good fan of Lincoln and certainly have respect for Martin Luther King, Jr., I think this speaks a little deeper into Obama's thinking. The Churchill bust was loaned to us after 9/11, and represented a reminder of the solidarity between England and the United States in times of great need. Churchill was strong and resolute in his determination to defeat the Germans during WWII. In turn, the U.S. President needs to be strong and resolute during the war against Islamic extremism. Yes, I said the word "war" and yes I said "Islamic extremism".

Now, Obama has replaced that resolute figure with those of appeasement. I know Lincoln was a war-time President, and he did remain firm in trying to keep the Union together. However, if you study his actions, he was very much the appeaser. Martin Luther King, Jr., represents the epitome of non-violent action. That is to his credit during the civil rights years, and he deserves all the respect and credit for his actions and leadership.

However, the Civil War has been over for quite some time. The Civil Rights era has been over for quite some time. Period.

I want a President who is firm and resolute and does not give indications of wavering right now - on the battlefront or on the home-front (economy).

Waverings:

Guantanamo Bay
Iran Issue
Gun Rights
Economy
Etc, Etc, Etc

Obama as an Educator on the Courts and Economics

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:40:00 +0000

Is it any wonder to anyone now just how bad it is that Obama was elected? I'm not to follow the talking points and continue yammering about the economy. What I want to do is take a deeper look at Obama's thinking process.

The link below is an audio/video clip of Barack Obama's 2001 radio interview concerning "change" of economics through the courts. This is a fundamentally flawed logic on many respects. As a business owner and capitalist, he view goes against everything that the core American system stands for.

Anyone who voted for Obama has a fundamental misunderstanding of how our country's economic and political system should function. Listen closely to the audio. Enough of the Obama-mania. It's time to look at the real issues he presents to us - and they are overwhelmingly bad.

Even more interesting is to read through the blog comments from WBEZ's original post. Some of these comments are just stupid. There is no other way to describe them.

So what do we do now? Continue to flood your elected representatives with mail and email - voice your concerns.

References:

Barack Obama wearing his professorial hat
http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=372

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Full List of Audio from WBEZ
http://apps.wbez.org/blog/

Hunting Season 2008 - So Far

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:38:00 +0000

Hey Everyone,

As most of you know, I love guns and love to hunt - unlike a lot of computer geeks. I also love to take my 3 boys to the woods. As a matter of fact, that is my main motivation for going.

This year's opening weekend was absolutely spectacular. Our group killed 3 big bucks, 2 smaller ones, and 2 does. Gregg killed a very nice 7pt, and I was fortunate enough to kill my largest buck ever - a 162lb 13 pt (w/ 1 possible pt that may score). Rough guess is about 150 B/C, but that's just an estimate.

Here is the run-down of who killed what:

Gregg Murphree- very nice 7pt plus 1 doe on Saturday evening
Lawrence Murphree - nice 6pt - should have been 8 or better but broken main beam - Saturday evening
Mark Murphree - nice doe - his 2nd ever
Michael Shields - button buck - his 1st deer ever - 150 yrds with .243 - Saturday evening
Mike Davis - nice spike - Saturday morning
Me - nice spike Saturday morning plus 13pt SUnday evening

A couple of weekends later, Jeremy killed his first deer - a short horn spike - with his single-shot .410!

As usual, many thanks to Mike Davis - my best friend for about 18 years or more - who allows us to hunt with him.

Also, big thanks to Gregg Murphree for taking my son, Michael, for his first shot and first kill and for a great time. Michael had a great time spotting deer for Gregg!

Also thanks to Patti and Tanya for cooking and helping watch the twins - and thanks to Colby, Mark, and Lawrence for skinning duties and helping out.

Also, a big thanks to Jeremy for hunting with me and being my good luck partner. We are going to work on getting his first deer this year also!

*See attached pics

Full Picture Albums:

http://picasaweb.google.com/SmarterGeekLLC/20081025DeerSeasonOpen#

http://picasaweb.google.com/SmarterGeekLLC/20081025DeerSeasonOpenGreg#

http://picasaweb.google.com/SmarterGeekLLC/20081026DeerSeasonOpenMike#

http://picasaweb.google.com/SmarterGeekLLC/20081026DeerSeasonOpen#

http://picasaweb.google.com/SmarterGeekLLC/2008125#

http://picasaweb.google.com/SmarterGeekLLC/20081123DeerSeasonJeremy#

PS: We are launching www.maddogoutdoors.com soon! Please keep a eye out for it!

Obama Supporter Attacked in Shreveport, LA - Kaylon Johnson

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:09:00 +0000

Well it's been a while since I posted anything political, but I figured this issue was definitely worth it!

Recently, a friend of mine - Kaylon Johnson - was brutually attacked at a Citgo Gas Station. Apparently, 3 white guys jumped him as he walked out of the store after paying for his gas. Kaylon is an ardent supporter of Obama and even helped run the IT for Obama's headquarters in Shreveport.

You can read the KSLA article here:
http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9479629&nav=0RY4Qi7R

Look, there is no doubt that I would gladly debate anyone on the politics of Obama. What I don't understand is why anyone would jump Kaylon (or anybody else for that matter).

Message to the guys who did it: If you can't debate the issues and facts, then you are 3 white pansies. 3 on 1 - come on. Wish I would have been there to help out Kaylon.

I first met him at an Economic Forum this spring sponsored by Southern University. I did a break-out session on technology and new media. Of course, I had my own laptop for my presentation and sure enough one of Southern's laptops died right before the next presentation. Kaylon asked if he could borrow mine for the rest of the presenters. He was very cordial, and I was happy to oblige.

Kaylon is obvisiously in a lot of pain and suffering right now. It's time for all of us to step across racial and party lines and do anything you can to help him even if it's just a supportive email.

Kaylon's Email: obamashreveport@gmail.com

The FBI is now investigating this as a possible hate crime. If you know anything about it:

Shreveport Police Department
Detective Craig Ivey
318-673-6992

The owners name and address of the gas station is:
J & S Fuel Services, Inc - CITGO
Owner: JAYAN T. MATHEWS
6901 WEST BERT KOUNS INDUSTRIAL LOOP
SHREVEPORT, LA 71129
Phone: 318-688-0654

Kudos to Davey D's blog for the contact information:
http://blog.myspace.com/mrdaveyd

Obama as an Educator on the Courts and Economics

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:29:00 +0000

The links below is an audio/video clip of Barack Obama's 2001 radio interview concerning "change" of economics through the courts. This is a fundamentally flawed logic on many respects. As a business owner and capitalist, he view goes against everything that the core American system stands for.

Anyone who votes for Obama has a fundamental misunderstanding of how our country's economic and political system should function. Listen closely to the audio. Enough of the Obama-mania. It's time to look at the real issues he presents to voters - and they are overwhelmingly bad.

Even more interesting is to read through the blog comments from WBEZ's original post. Some of these comments are just stupid. There is no other way to describe them.

1) Even though all the legal and academic talk flew over my head, I was impressed with Obama’s intellect and eloquence more than ever.
----------
I would say one’s ability to adapt tone and language to a particular audience reflects an acute understanding of that audience.
----------
Oh, to have an intelligent and thoughtful president for a change! Think of the great people he will place in his government and the advances we can make as a nation based on the good of all rather than the profit of a few!

If you don't vote during this election - and help make sure that your neighbors and friends vote - then shame on you.

References:

Barack Obama wearing his professorial hat
http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=372

Barack Obama’s Radio Days
Full List of Audio from WBEZ
http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=639

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Marijuana Farms at the Taxpayer's Expense

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:06:00 +0000

Well this article caught me totally by surprise - I had no idea that so many ganja farmers were using public lands.

In 2007, rangers found more than 20,000 plants in Yosemite National Park and 43,000 plants in Sequoia Kings Canyon National Park, where 159 grow sites have been discovered over the past 10 years.

How in the world do they get these marijuana farms going on National Park Service land without being seen? I can understand how it's difficult to find private pot stashes on non-public lands, but in Yosemite National Park?

High Sierra Trail Crew...plans to ...carry out miles of drip irrigation pipe, tons of human garbage, volatile propane canisters, and bags and bottles of herbicides and pesticides.

I suppose I need to go and remind my neighbors to be careful of what they are smoking. They probably are killing more brain cells than they expected.

The illegal cultivation sites bore the characteristics of a Mexican drug trafficking enterprise, including a sophisticated watering system, use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. The growing operation resulted in considerable natural resource destruction.

What can we do as Conservatives? Write your Congressman/woman and let them know that you don't want your tax dollars wasted helping the ganja farmers. This is simply crazy and needs to hit the mainstream media.

References:

Mexican marijuana cartels sully US forests, parks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_re_us/pot_environment

Yosemite National Park
Marijuana Gardens Raided in Yosemite National Park
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parknews/marijuana2007.htm

This is hilarious.
http://www.marijuana.com/drug-test/index

10 years to produce?

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:37:00 +0000

One of the biggest arguments that liberals use against increasing oil production domestically is that it will "take 10 years to have any impact." Oh really? Well let's take a quick look at some facts.

Elm Coulee Oil Field, which produces oil from the Bakken Formation, was discovered in 2000. By 2007 the field had become one of the 20 largest oil fields in the United States. That's within 7 years!

So what - do the liberals like to round up? They often cite the study by the EIA that says it would take 10 years before oil production would start in ANWR. Yeah - sure it would.

Liberals also like to state that drilling in places such as the Bakken Formation or ANWR would not have an immediate result on the pump. Let's assume that they are correct (which they are not). Ok, we just assumed it. I would much rather start something now and realize it later, than not start anything at all.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Four, renew -- invest in renewable energy resources, which will bring a faster return than drilling offshore, which will take 10 years and produce 2 cents' reduction in 10 years off the price at the pump.

Here is the real deal: Increasing oil production domestically now will have a positive short-term impact on our economy plus a long-term impact on our oil independence. It's a no-brainer.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Coulee_Oil_Field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation

Did Nancy Pelosi cave on offshore oil drilling?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/08/offshore-drilli.html

Meth Watch Program?

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:15:00 +0000

I just ran across this picture I took about a year ago in Quitman, TX, on Hwy 154. I was driving back from Sulphur Springs, TX, after working on a client's network. As I drove by I glanced over and nearly had a wreck!

Whose briliant idea was it to come up with a "Meth Watch" program? Even more brilliant - those same people think putting a sign up is going to deter meth addicts?

After a little googling, it turns out that there is an official website for the program - all helped by Federal funding. Of course!

Interestingly enough the "Combat Meth Act" was part of the Patriot Act signed into law in 2005. This is the law that made it much more difficult to purchase cold remedies containing pseudoephedrine. You have to buy them behind the counter now and that is subject to limited quantities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not for people using meth. Years ago I worked in McAlester, OK, and at least 60% of our employees abused meth among other things. No, I'm not exaggerating one bit. There were many times I had to bail out employees so we could keep production going. An employee that I dated for a few months (Jennifer) would drive me around and show me the houses where they were "cooking" - then we'd go out for dinner and a few drinks. She would walk right up to to many of the wealthy and powerful in the town and they would buy her drinks or dinner. These were many of the same people that I knew from business - pretty sad actually.

The communities around Quitman, TX, are just as bad though. I also worked around Alba, TX, and there were a lot of rural houses used as meth labs around the Lake Fork area.

I just find it hilarious that we have to have "meth watch" signs posted.

You Can't Legislate Irresponsibility

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:54:00 +0000

Some things never change...Recently, the Shreveport Times reported on resistance to ATV (4-wheeler) legislation that would have required stricter regulations. Here is the problem with that logic. It won't work.

Twenty years ago, the Consumer Product Safety Commission responded to safety concerns by negotiating a consent decree with ATV manufacturers.

The decree required manufacturers to, among other things, halt production of three-wheelers and offer safety training to new ATV owners who purchase vehicles through authorized dealerships.

Additionally, ATV manufacturers are required to recommend adult-sized ATVs only for those ages 16 and older and label all ATVs with warnings, instructing purchasers that children should not ride adult-size ATVs.

Most of the injuries reported in the news deal with riding irresponsibly - speeding, too large an ATV for the rider's skills, etc. Look, I've been riding ATV's since I was 9 years old. I started out riding mini-bikes and 3-wheelers, which are now banned. In my entire life with thousands and thousands of hours of riding for recreation, I am yet to turn one over.

Smith is familiar with the negative impact of ATV use among teens. Her son, B.J., suffered a disabling accident three years ago when he swerved to avoid a dog while riding an adult-sized ATV at about 60 mph.

Now 18, B.J.'s brain injury left him unable to complete high school and reduced his vision to 40 percent.

Smith is a member of Concerned Families for ATV Safety, which advocates complete ATV abstinence for those under 16.

Let's read that again - he was 16 years riding an adult-sized ATV at 60 mph and swerved to avoid a dog. There is no legislation that would have prevented that. He would have been riding too fast for conditions anyway, been on an ATV beyond his skill level, still swerved to miss the dog, and still have medical issues.

I'm sorry for the mother and her son, but you can't legislate irresponsible riding away.

Louisianians resistant to ATV legislation
By Keli Jacobi • kcjacobi@thenewsstar.com • October 6, 2008 6:44 am
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081006/NEWS01/81006008/1060/NEWS01

Louisiana Oct 4 Primary Results

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:06:00 +0000

Here are the unofficial results of the October 4, 2008, Congressional election primaries for the Republicans and Democrats.

Republican Party
John Fleming: 14,500 votes, 35.14%
"Chris" Gorman: 14,070 votes, 34.1%
"Jeff" Thompson: 12,693 votes, 30.76%

Democratic Party
Willie Banks: 17,620 votes, 22.961%
Paul J. Carmouche: 36,930 votes, 48.12%
Artis "Doc" Cash: 6,065 votes, 7.9%
John Milkovich: 16,135 votes, 21.02%

Looks like both parties will have runoffs on the Nov. 4 ballot with the general election on Dec. 6th along with 2 independents.

If you want state-wide results, here is a link to the Louisiana Secretary of State Election Results query:

http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcinq&rqsdta=start

Simply select what results you want to view, choose the correct election date, and get the results. That is one of the greatest benefit of the Internet - near instant communications!

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Housing for Poor People

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:42:00 +0000

Well, it looks like the Bush Administration did warn - and attempted to do something - about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle. Here is the real deal about these entities in 1 paragraph.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the two largest mortgage lenders in the industry. The problem is that they primarily back loans to lower-income families. In short, they allow people to borrow beyond their means.

In 2003, the Bush Administration sought to overhaul the regulation of the housing finance industry which was shot down by ranking Democrats. In 2005, legislation in the House to overhaul the 2 quasi-agencies was so toothless that it was opposed by the White House and pulled by the legislation's backer, Mike Oxley.

In case you were wondering, John McCain also supported more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

At every turn, the liberals who gained the most from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac opposed regulations. Now, they want to try and play the blame game and want us to pick up the tab? I'm not really fond of my tax dollars subsidizing the loans for poor people to afford housing that is beyond their means. I'm also not in favor of paying again to bail them out, while certain legislators and executives pocket a sweet deal.

Republicans For - Democrats Against

Who does Clinton Blame?

References:

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

House Approves Overhaul at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: October 27, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/business/27fannie.html

Where Was Sen. Dodd?
Playing the Blame Game On Fannie and Freddie
By Al Hubbard and Noam Neusner
Friday, September 12, 2008; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html

S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
*McCain co-sponsored a reform bill by Sen. Charles Hagel R-NE
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Credit Canard
Claim: E-mail reproduces a 1999 newspaper article warning about potential troubles with Fannie Mae.
Status: True.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp

The Economy, Deregulation, and the Blame

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 03:20:00 +0000

There is a lot of mud-slinging going on about the recent Wall-Street and Congressional crisis. Now, I am NOT a financial expert nor a political expert. However, facts are facts, and that is what matters. Now, here are the facts.

(1) In 1999 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed my a wide margin in both houses of Congress. This act repealed the decades-old Glass-Steagall Act, and basically allowed the lines to dim between banking, securities, and insurance companies.

Senate: 90-8-1
House: 362-57-15

(2) President Bill Clinton signed it into law on Nov. 12, 1999. In a recent interview, he stood behind signing the bill.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/08_40/b4102000409948.htm

Clinton: ...Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans].

(3) This problem is a bi-partisan issue. I blame both parties plus Wall-Street.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-354

Now whether or not this deregulation caused the current crisis - I'm not sure. I personally think that the deregulation COMBINED with lax oversight and greedy companies are really to blame. Don't get me wrong - I'm a capitalist and conservative, but there are times when oversight are needed.

Fw: election day very important

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:39:00 +0000

VERY IMPORTANT

IF YOU ARE DEMOCRAT....

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ADVISE EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT GO TO THE POLLS WEARING ANY OBAMA SHIRTS, PINS OR HATS, IT IS AGAINST THE LAW AND WILL BE GROUNDS TO HAVE THE POLLING OFFICIALS TO TURN YOU AWAY.

THIS IS CONSIDERED CAMPAIGNING, AND NO ONE CAN CAMPAIGN WITHIN X AMOUNT OF FEET TO THE POLLS.

THEY ARE BANKING ON US BEING EXCITED AND NOT BEING AWARE OF THIS LONG
STANDING LAW THAT YOU CAN BET WILL BE ENFORCED THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!!

THEY ARE BANKING, THAT IF ARE TURNED AWAY YOU WILL NOT GO HOME AND CHANGE YOUR CLOTHES.

PLEASE JUST DON T WEAR OBAMA GEAR OF ANY SORTS TO THE POLLS!! PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION, OH AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE ALREADY AWARE THIS WAS NOT MEANT TO INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE. JUST TRYING TO COVER ALL
GROUNDS.

Pass This On!!!!

Boy I hate these types of emails...but I will bite on this one.

Exactly who is the "they" that would prevent you from voting? Since I am a Conservative (and Republican), are you referring to me?

And I will assume that in true voter fairness in preventing the so-called "voter disenfranchisement", that you would say the same for Republican voters or Libertarian voters? We should not wear shirts or signage supporting our particular candidates either right? I will remind everyone that the polling places are manned by citizens that belong to both of the major parties.

See here is the problem - while you can allude to "voter suppression" and "voter disenfranchisement" by the tone of this email, the facts support the opposite. If someone is truly suppressed from voting and can prove that fact, then 1 call to a newspaper is all it would take to blow the "dirty little secret" wide open. We live in a world of instant communications with email, blogging, text messages, etc. There is simply no way that any sort of disenfranchisement should occur.

Now there are certainly cases where people are turned away from polls due to legislation or rules. The truth is that most of this legislation is designed to prevent voter fraud - such as requiring ID's to vote. I highly support that measure and so does the US Supreme Court. Virtually all states require an ID for your first voter registration, and contrary to popular liberal rhetoric it is not an undo burden to require it going forward. Will photo ID's stop all voter fraud? Nope - but it will help in at least some cases.

So again, in the interest of a true democratic republic, I think this email should be addressed to people who support any candidate whatsoever - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or even the Socialists. Everyone should know the law - ignorance is no excuse - and these types of laws have been on the books for years in most cases.

Now here is the legal truth (at least in the state of Louisiana). You are NOT allowed to wear any garments or have signage supporting any particular candidate within 600 feet of a polling place. The actual statute is listed here:

Louisiana RS 18:1462
Acts prohibited on election day; electioneering; intimidation; exceptions; enforcement; penalties
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=81431

You are NOT asked to go home and change clothes - at least not in Bossier Parish. You are simply asked to change your shirt, or turn it inside out temporarily, and/or remove any signage. Yes, I actually called the Bossier Parish Registrar of Voters office and asked - and recorded the conversation. Pretty simple to pick up the phone and call.

[Upload MP3 File Here]

Let's take a look at another side to these laws for Louisiana. This state tends to be largely Democratic in it's congressional makeup. By the logic of this email and most liberal claims, the Louisiana Democrats (and governors) wrote the laws and passed them to disenfranchise their own voters?

See - that is the irony of most of the liberally biased claims. They just don't make sense.

The state-by-state laws are not intended to disenfranchise anyone. As a matter of fact, they are written for exactly the right reason - to eliminate any undo voter influence at the polling place. It's called "electioneering".

The Globe is Warming? No kidding!

noreply@blogger.com (Rex Moncrief) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:04:00 +0000

So you think Al Gore really deserves the Nobel Peace Prize? I happen to disagree with that.
--------------------

------------------

Al has been on a crusade to generate massive amounts of publicity for himself. Maybe he is still stinging after his loss to George W. Bush. Who knows and who really cares.

Yes, the globe is warming. We are nearing the end of an ice age so what do you expect? Are we solely responsible for the warming? Nope. Are we helping to accelerate the warming trend? Maybe just a bit, but Earth's history has shown vast periods of warming and cooling.

Warming, then a cold snap. Around 14,000 years ago (about 13,000 radiocarbon years ago), there was a rapid global warming and moistening of climates, perhaps occurring within the space of only a few years or decades.

Remarkably, that sounds like the last 30 years on Earth. In the 70's the scientists (and alarmists) were screaming about the impending ice age. Time Magazine, Newsweek, and many other publications were screaming about the impending disaster on the horizon.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Guess we must be secretly pumping greenhouse gases to Mars too, right? Now how are we going to figure out the carbon offset tax for Mar's usage? It must be NASA to blame! Those darn rovers have emitted enough carbon dioxide to disrupt the Martian atmosphere!

The funny thing is that anytime someone comes up with an alternative theory on the warming trends, it is immediately spun off as "controversial". Just look at this quote from National Geographic's website:

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Actually, I think the whole "humans are causing it all" theory is very controversial. I also think the stupid carbon offset swindle is just that - a swindle. And that's a topic for another blog post!

References:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

The Environmental Sciences Division - Oak Ridge Laboratory
A quick background to the last ice age
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

U.S. government asks if carbon-offset money is well spent
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/09/business/09offsets.php

The Carbon Offset Con
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4035/29/

PDF Archive:
Another Ice Age? - Time Magzine

Newsweek - Cooling World