"LONG BEACH, Calif. (CBS/AP) Long Beach police officers shot and killed a man Sunday when they apparently mistook a pistol-grip water nozzle he was holding, for a gun.
Now family members of the man, 35-year-old Douglas Zerby, are lashing out at the police, saying they made no attempt to contact him before opening fire.
Zerby was gunned down at an apartment building Sunday after two people reported a man with a gun sitting on a backyard porch landing, according to authorities.
Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell said officers took positions to observe Zerby, who appeared intoxicated, and believed he had a "tiny six-shooter" as described by a male caller.
Zerby reportedly pointed the black metal-tipped nozzle at one of the officers, and two officers fired a handgun and a shotgun. A total of eight shots were fired - six from a handgun and two from shot guns, said McDonnell.
"They didn't say 'Put your hands up' or 'Freeze' or anything," Zerby's sister, Eden Marie Biele told The Associated Press Monday. "He was killed in cold blood."
However, police officials say Zerby's behavior prompted the officers' response.
"As the subject was in a seated position, he used a two-handed pistol-grip hold on an object with his arms fully extended," McDonnell said. "Somebody that is impaired and waving what appears to witnesses and police to be a handgun. That's what the officers were faced with."
Both officers involved in the shooting were put on administrative leave.
Zerby's sister said police made the family wait seven hours before confirming that her brother was the man who had been killed, and said that her family is considering legal action."
This is one of those stories you come across that makes you feel really sad and angry at the same time. Police in California killed a man for holding a water nozzle because they "thought" or had reports that it was a gun?
First of all, when is it wrong in America to have a gun? Second of all why did the neighbors report him even if he did have a gun? It's his right. They can't take it away from him just because they don't like it. The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment and upheld by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
Even if this man did have a gun, the police still should never just roll on to a scene guns blazing and kill a suspect without informing them of their presence. What a disgrace this is as well as a nightmare this man and his family have to go through.
Commentary and analysis on all things political. A blog sponsored by the College Republicans at Roger Williams University.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Liberal Star Blogger Ezra Klein: ‘Constitution Has No Binding Power on Anything’; Confusing Because it’s Over 100 Years Old
This is almost comical yet sickening at the same time.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Hawaii Governor Brings Back Birther Debate
For about three years now, millions of Americans have questioned Obama's status as an American who was born on our soil. It is my position to agree that people are correct in doing this. This is not a "racist" movement. The United States Constitution mandates that to be eligible for the office of the President of the United States that one must be born in the United States. Why is someone wrong in questioning Obama's status as a natural born citizen?
It is the duty of Americans to question the citizenship status of every President and make sure they are born in the United States. The only reason the "birther" movement still exists is because Obama has refused to release his birth certificate. What is the reason for such secrecy?
The only so-called "proof" shown to the American people was a certificate of live birth posted on a non-government website. This is all a person needs to do to become president? The United States is in a said state of affairs when we disregard the rule of law and let an assumption of birth pass as a constitutional requirement.
The Democratic governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, has recently made headlines in his quest to make Obama's "birth records" public. I applaud Governor Abercrombie because he is now doing what Obama should have done in the first place. If Obama is trying this hard to keep this information secret, spending millions in court to have this information kept classified, doesn't he realize that if he is truly a citizen born here then he has nothing to worry about? Only time will tell.
It is the duty of Americans to question the citizenship status of every President and make sure they are born in the United States. The only reason the "birther" movement still exists is because Obama has refused to release his birth certificate. What is the reason for such secrecy?
The only so-called "proof" shown to the American people was a certificate of live birth posted on a non-government website. This is all a person needs to do to become president? The United States is in a said state of affairs when we disregard the rule of law and let an assumption of birth pass as a constitutional requirement.
The Democratic governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, has recently made headlines in his quest to make Obama's "birth records" public. I applaud Governor Abercrombie because he is now doing what Obama should have done in the first place. If Obama is trying this hard to keep this information secret, spending millions in court to have this information kept classified, doesn't he realize that if he is truly a citizen born here then he has nothing to worry about? Only time will tell.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Merry Christmas from the College Republicans at Roger Williams Unviersity
To all of those that celebrate Christmas this time of the year, have a very merry Christmas.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
More on Healthcare
This video is from a doctors point of view, it was from before the election, but after the healthcare bill passed. The more I hear the more scared I get.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Problem with Funding Scientific Research
First some background, to anyone who knows something about basic economics this is a review, to everyone else, there is the problem in economics of a "public good" (the best example being a fireworks display) where it is non-rival and non-excludable. Aka its hard to limit who sees them and who does not and one person watching them does not take away from another person watching them. The problem with this is who provides it? You have a problem with "free riders" where people do not pay for it, but still get to enjoy it. The first conclusion everyone leaps to then is government should pay for it.
In recent years there has been a huge push that scientific research is a public good and therefore should be provided funds by the government. The problem is as soon as it's government funding people tend to be much more wasteful of money and lets face it the federal government nor our state government can afford much of anything these days. So the big question is...... is there a way to still do research and not have the government adding to their deficit to do it?
This video does a great job of giving an alternative, one that is literally right under our nose.
In recent years there has been a huge push that scientific research is a public good and therefore should be provided funds by the government. The problem is as soon as it's government funding people tend to be much more wasteful of money and lets face it the federal government nor our state government can afford much of anything these days. So the big question is...... is there a way to still do research and not have the government adding to their deficit to do it?
This video does a great job of giving an alternative, one that is literally right under our nose.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Government Gives Itself Power to Regulate Internet
via The Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON—Federal telecommunications regulators approved new rules Tuesday that would for the first time give the federal government formal authority to regulate Internet traffic, although how much or for how long remained unclear.
The FCC has approved rules that would give the federal government authority to regulate Internet traffic and prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic. WSJ's Amy Schatz explains what the new rules really mean.
A divided Federal Communications Commission approved a proposal by Chairman Julius Genachowski to give the FCC power to prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic.
The rules will go into effect early next year, but legal challenges or action by Congress could block the FCC's action. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) on Tuesday called the FCC's action "flawed" and said lawmakers would "have an opportunity in the new Congress to push back against new rules and regulations."
The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services.
The rules would also require Internet providers to give subscribers more information on Internet speeds and service. Broadly, the rules would prohibit Internet providers from "unreasonably discriminating" against rivals' Internet traffic or services on wired or wireless networks.
The rules would allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery services to Internet companies willing to pay extra. But the FCC proposal contains language suggesting the agency would try to discourage creation of such high-speed toll lanes.
Companies that operate mobile wireless networks would have fewer rules to contend with. Phone companies wouldn't be able to block legal websites from consumers. They also can't block mobile voice or video-conferencing applications. Wireless providers would be allowed to block other applications, however, that they say could take up too much bandwidth on wireless networks.
Related
The five-member Federal Communications Commission board approved the new rules on a 3-2 vote, with the agency's two Republican members rejecting the measure.
"For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Tuesday morning. He said the rules offered "a strong and sensible framework—one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment."
Republicans at the FCC and on Capitol Hill blasted the FCC's new rules, saying that they could stifle new investments in broadband networks and are unnecessary since there have been few complaints about Internet providers blocking or slowing web traffic.
The FCC's action "is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure," said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn't support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet "because it wants to, not because it needs to."
At the same time, advocates of strong net-neutrality rules complained that Mr. Genachowski's proposal didn't go far enough, a sentiment echoed Tuesday by the agency's other two Democrats.
Specifically, the two Democratic FCC commissioners wanted the same rules to apply to both wireless and wireline broadband networks. However, they agreed to approve the rules anyway, saying that passing Mr. Genachowski's proposal was better than nothing.
"In my book, today's action could, and should, have gone further," said Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps.
Big phone and cable companies have expressed qualified support for the compromise, but they have said there was no real need for government regulation of web traffic.
Although this is the first time the FCC has passed formal rules on "net neutrality," or the idea that Internet providers can't deliberately block or slow web traffic, it is not the first time the agency has tried to act as an Internet traffic cop.
In 2007 the agency sanctioned Comcast for deliberately slowing the web traffic of some subscribers who were downloading large files over peer-to-peer networks. Comcast sued and in April, a federal appeals court sided with the cable giant, saying that the FCC didn't have clear authority to enforce net neutrality.
The rules passed Tuesday are also likely to be legally challenged, and it isn't clear if they will be upheld. Congress has never given the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet lines, so the agency is using older rules to justify its authority.
WASHINGTON—Federal telecommunications regulators approved new rules Tuesday that would for the first time give the federal government formal authority to regulate Internet traffic, although how much or for how long remained unclear.
The FCC has approved rules that would give the federal government authority to regulate Internet traffic and prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic. WSJ's Amy Schatz explains what the new rules really mean.
A divided Federal Communications Commission approved a proposal by Chairman Julius Genachowski to give the FCC power to prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic.
The rules will go into effect early next year, but legal challenges or action by Congress could block the FCC's action. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) on Tuesday called the FCC's action "flawed" and said lawmakers would "have an opportunity in the new Congress to push back against new rules and regulations."
The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services.
The rules would also require Internet providers to give subscribers more information on Internet speeds and service. Broadly, the rules would prohibit Internet providers from "unreasonably discriminating" against rivals' Internet traffic or services on wired or wireless networks.
The rules would allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery services to Internet companies willing to pay extra. But the FCC proposal contains language suggesting the agency would try to discourage creation of such high-speed toll lanes.
Companies that operate mobile wireless networks would have fewer rules to contend with. Phone companies wouldn't be able to block legal websites from consumers. They also can't block mobile voice or video-conferencing applications. Wireless providers would be allowed to block other applications, however, that they say could take up too much bandwidth on wireless networks.
Related
The five-member Federal Communications Commission board approved the new rules on a 3-2 vote, with the agency's two Republican members rejecting the measure.
"For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Tuesday morning. He said the rules offered "a strong and sensible framework—one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment."
Republicans at the FCC and on Capitol Hill blasted the FCC's new rules, saying that they could stifle new investments in broadband networks and are unnecessary since there have been few complaints about Internet providers blocking or slowing web traffic.
The FCC's action "is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure," said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn't support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet "because it wants to, not because it needs to."
At the same time, advocates of strong net-neutrality rules complained that Mr. Genachowski's proposal didn't go far enough, a sentiment echoed Tuesday by the agency's other two Democrats.
Specifically, the two Democratic FCC commissioners wanted the same rules to apply to both wireless and wireline broadband networks. However, they agreed to approve the rules anyway, saying that passing Mr. Genachowski's proposal was better than nothing.
"In my book, today's action could, and should, have gone further," said Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps.
Big phone and cable companies have expressed qualified support for the compromise, but they have said there was no real need for government regulation of web traffic.
Although this is the first time the FCC has passed formal rules on "net neutrality," or the idea that Internet providers can't deliberately block or slow web traffic, it is not the first time the agency has tried to act as an Internet traffic cop.
In 2007 the agency sanctioned Comcast for deliberately slowing the web traffic of some subscribers who were downloading large files over peer-to-peer networks. Comcast sued and in April, a federal appeals court sided with the cable giant, saying that the FCC didn't have clear authority to enforce net neutrality.
The rules passed Tuesday are also likely to be legally challenged, and it isn't clear if they will be upheld. Congress has never given the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet lines, so the agency is using older rules to justify its authority.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
With other Debates Done START to Begin
The easiest side to see for many of these issues being debated in the senate now is the liberal side of the argument. You really have to stop and think to understand why there is opposition to a treaty that on face value seems to provide only good intentions. The START Treaty (for STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) when first looked at is about reducing arms between the US and Russia and starting up inspections between the two countries again. So what',s wrong with that? Well the problems start as you begin to look at the actual wording in the treaty as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona did with his proposed amendment that was voted down (59-37). The specific wording in the bill that comes into question is:
“Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.”
This wording is very ambiguous to say the least. This raises some very important questions. Such as who is getting more out of this treaty? What is this interrelationship that will become more important? And how will this link between our offensive arms and defensive arms impact the defensive ones?
Defensive arms can incorporate many things, the most obvious would be weapons we have in our country to defend ourselves against different possible attacks. But what the treaty is more likely going after, which could potentially be even scarier, is shutting down and dismantling our Missile Defense Systems in Eastern Europe. For those that don't know, this system was set up so that if Russia were to attack, the system would counter-attack target key areas in Russia, terminating their Second Strike capability. This ensures that they can not continue to attack us if their surprise first strike takes out all of our defenses within our country. All this is likely because our capabilities greatly reduces Russia's world prestige and makes them feel bad. The most recent NATO summit agreed with our placement of these defenses, meaning this is just another way Obama, the Democrat led senate, and even some GOP senators are trying to lead us down the road to submission, which as Regan said so well is not a choice between peace and war, but a choice between freedom or slavery.
We can all agree (or I hope we can) that the world would be a better place if nuclear weapon stockpiles could be reduced or even better eliminated. But is there a possible way to do this? Are we fooling ourselves thinking that by us making all these concessions it will make other countries see how we are stepping up to reduce our nuclear stockpiles, so they should reduce theirs? It might be just me, but I don't think North Korea and Iran are going to do that, they are going to laugh and continue to increase their ever expanding arsenal.
Many say the GOP are just trying to delay for the sake of delaying and kill the treaty. But the truth is, something with such huge ramifications needs more than just a glancing over before it is passed. We know very well that Obama will not be one to go through and make sure everything is satisfactory. At this point he just wants a couple of things checked off in his very large "to do" list, with very few checks so far.
In reality the most important question of them all is why are we taking the time to go through this? Our economy is in shambles, we in the middle of massive government take overs with rising unemployment. Why are we worrying about Russia? Russia is not important anymore!!! Out of all the foreign threats to our country I believe we can all agree Russia would not even be put in the top three. We have Iran and North Korea developing Nuclear programs, we have China buying/developing who knows what. And Mexico taking over more and more of our country. Why is Russia such a top priority?
Friday, December 17, 2010
Indoctrination at its Finest
Somewhat of an old video, however it makes you think how Obama actually got into office. It's sheep like this who will blindly follow a political movement based upon racist tendencies.
Omnibus Spending Bill Out - DREAM Act In
Thankfully, we learn last night that Harry Reid had pulled the 1.3 trillion dollar omnibus spending bill. This comes after a wake of criticism over the extreme increase in spending and hundreds of billions of dollars in earmarks and pet projects.
This lame-duck Congress just won't stop a take a breather. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi insist on attempting to pass more and more leftist legislation after this type of governance has been utterly rejected at the polls this November. One leftist bill fails, so they bring in the next one. This is a clear rejection of the will of the American people by our elected legislators.
A repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and a vote on the DREAM Act are both scheduled for this weekend in the Senate, and conservatives hopes aren't that optimistic. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is expected to pass the Senate with at least four votes from Republicans. The status of the DREAM Act at this point is not as clear. We can only hope that our elected representatives will realize the serious immigration problem our country has and that the DREAM Act is only going to make it worse, a lot worse.
With almost 1,000,000 illegal immigrants crossing our border each year, this is not the necessary step to take, but the opposite. This Act is about as close you can get to amnesty. When non-citizens see our government doing things like this, it almost totally absolves the fear of entering the country and being detained or deported. This will only encourage illegal immigration into the United States.
The only card the U.S. has left to play is to close the borders. We need to stop all of the illegal immigrants, drug traffickers, human smugglers, criminals, terrorists, and unwanted persons from crossing our porous southern border. We have troops around the world as well as troops in the U.S. to put it frankly aren't doing much. These troops could be on our southern border, protecting us to we don't have to see on the news everyday that another rancher was killed in Texas or Arizona.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill
via Breitbart:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.
GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.
Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP)—The top Senate Republican has offered a one-page bill to prevent a government shutdown on Saturday as an alternative to a 1,924-page catchall spending measure offered by Democrats.
Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell says it's unbelievable that Democrats want to pass the measure in just a few days as Christmas approaches. He says Congress should pass a less costly bill next year—when Republicans will have more leverage.
McConnell had earlier quietly backed the effort to produce the nearly $1.3 trillion bill, but he's now trying to kill it. McConnell also obtained $85 million in so-called earmarks for Kentucky.
Democrats say they'll take up the bill later Thursday. It bankrolls every Cabinet agency for the budget year that started Oct. 1.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats controlling the Senate have abandoned a 1,924-page catchall spending measure that's laced with homestate pet projects known as earmarks and that would have provided another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid gave up on the nearly $1.3 trillion bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for the bill pulled back their support.
GOP leader Mitch McConnell threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was in his words "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in just a few days legislation that usually takes months to debate.
Reid said he would work with McConnell to produce a short-term funding bill to keep the government running into early next year.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP)—The top Senate Republican has offered a one-page bill to prevent a government shutdown on Saturday as an alternative to a 1,924-page catchall spending measure offered by Democrats.
Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell says it's unbelievable that Democrats want to pass the measure in just a few days as Christmas approaches. He says Congress should pass a less costly bill next year—when Republicans will have more leverage.
McConnell had earlier quietly backed the effort to produce the nearly $1.3 trillion bill, but he's now trying to kill it. McConnell also obtained $85 million in so-called earmarks for Kentucky.
Democrats say they'll take up the bill later Thursday. It bankrolls every Cabinet agency for the budget year that started Oct. 1.
Congressman Calls on Obama to Take Illegal Immigration 'Seriously' Following Death of Border Agent
via Fox News
The incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said the shooting death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent is a "sad reminder" of the dangers law enforcement officers face on a daily basis and called on the Obama administration to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Elect Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said the killing of Brian A. Terry in southern Arizona late Tuesday should serve as wake-up call to President Obama and his administration.
"The Obama administration’s lax enforcement of immigration laws, coupled with calls for mass amnesty, only encourage more illegal immigration," Smith said in a statement released Wednesday. "Our border remains porous and the Obama administration has done nothing to stop the steady flow of human and drug smuggling from Mexico."
Agent Brian A. Terry, 40, was killed late Tuesday near Rio Rico, Ariz., according to a statement released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials. At least four suspects are in custody and another is still being pursued.
The leader of a union representing Border Patrol agents said Terry was trying to catch bandits who target illegal immigrants for robbery.
National Border Patrol Council President T.J. Bonner said Terry was waiting with three other agents in a remote area north of Nogales when a gun battle began. A CBP spokesman would not confirm that account.
Prior to Terry's death, the last fatal shooting of a Border Patrol agent was on July 23, 2009, when Robert Rosas, 30, was killed by unidentified assailants while responding to suspicious activity in a known smuggling corridor near Campo, Calif., CBP officials said.
Since 2005, according to Smith's statement, roughly 28,000 people have been killed along the U.S.-Mexico border, including 1,000 law enforcement officers.
"The murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is a sad reminder of the real-life dangers that Americans and our law enforcement agents face along the southwest border," Smith's statement continued. "What will it take to make the Obama administration realize that we must do more to secure our border and keep Americans safe? Earlier this year, a rancher in Arizona was killed on his own property. The suspect is believed to have been an illegal immigrant. Last night, Border Patrol Agent Terry lost his life for simply doing his job. How many more Americans will die before the Obama administration wakes up and starts taking illegal immigration seriously?"
Massachusettes Stuck With Another Liberal
Being a lifelong Massachusetts resident, I have come to expect that Senior U.S. Senator John Kerry would maintain his normal posture of being a liberal, but I didn't expect Scott Brown to be just as bad. We learn today, that Scott Brown, only days after voting to filibuster "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is on board with the Democrats to repeal it.
The victory of Scott Brown was a truly amazing one, and the entire nation stopped when they heard a Republican won in one of the most liberal states in the country. Scott Brown was the topic of conservation in Massachusetts for weeks both before and after the election. People across the country were amazed that a Republican, someone who campaigned as a conservative Republican on most issues, actually won a U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts.
After all of the hype surrounding the election started to fade off, us political junkies watched and have seen how Brown actually voted. Brown has stood firm on some critical fiscal issues, but as expected, eventually gave in to the democrats and a liberal view of public policy. I guess in Massachusetts you replace a liberal with a liberal, even if it happens to be a Republican.
The victory of Scott Brown was a truly amazing one, and the entire nation stopped when they heard a Republican won in one of the most liberal states in the country. Scott Brown was the topic of conservation in Massachusetts for weeks both before and after the election. People across the country were amazed that a Republican, someone who campaigned as a conservative Republican on most issues, actually won a U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts.
After all of the hype surrounding the election started to fade off, us political junkies watched and have seen how Brown actually voted. Brown has stood firm on some critical fiscal issues, but as expected, eventually gave in to the democrats and a liberal view of public policy. I guess in Massachusetts you replace a liberal with a liberal, even if it happens to be a Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)