Serial numbers on bullets – the new plan to ban guns

So, a day after I published my article on the proposed gun ban by the new Congress, I started to receive messages from readers who had no idea that this was a possibility.  They believed that if it were a real threat, the National Rifle Association would be at the front of the crowd beating the drums and rallying the troops against this travesty.

The NRA’s “top story” on their Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) page is about an absurd idea that for some strange reason is gaining support.  Even more shocking, some of the states where it’s beginning to become popular are states that have concealed carry laws and are considered “gun friendly.”

Ammunition Accountability is a company that states they have the solution to gun crime.  By laser micro-etching a serial number on the base of the projectile that matches with the serial number on the inside of the cartridge it’s fired from, they plan to sell ammunition in boxes with unique codes that can be tracked and recorded by law enforcement.  They admit that they won’t be able to identify “who pulled the trigger” but “will provide law enforcement with a valuable lead and a starting point to quickly begin their investigations.”

They also are pressing legislation which would require an ammunition code database.  The database would hold the barcode of each box of ammunition sold along with the state-issued ID of the person who purchased it.  Where will the mainframe that stores all this personal information be located?  Conveniently, they haven’t answered that question yet.

You might be thinking, “But if the bullet will be able to identify where it came from, wouldn’t that be a good thing?  We could finally catch everyone who uses a gun illegally!”  Wrong!!  That’s what they want you to think because they believe you’ll blindly assume that people who commit crimes with guns purchase their own ammunition at retail outlets like law-abiding gun owners do.  If you own some of the newly serialized ammunition, you won’t be able to reload your own ammo; you won’t be able to share with your friends; and you won’t be able to resell your surplus ammunition as you can now.

Ammunition Accountability has done their homework.  They know that ammunition is most typically sold in boxes of 20 or 50 rounds per box.  They know that there are 12 common handgun and assault weapon calibers — and they’ve not said what they plan to do for those “uncommon” calibers.  They’ve shown that even ammunition as small as .22 caliber and 12-gauge shotgun pellets can be etched and will be required as well to carry the marks.  They also know that it will cost each manufacturer between $300,000 and $500,000 for each etching unit set.  You should know where the money to pay for the cost comes from; and I can guarantee the incoming administration isn’t going to offer a stimulus package to fund it.

So instead of eliminating the firearms themselves, they want to eliminate the ammunition.  If the cost becomes prohibitive and the hassle too great, most consumers won’t bother to buy what they need and will go without.  And if you don’t have ammunition, your firearm becomes either an unwieldy club or an expensive paperweight.

Again I hear those saying, “But you don’t get it!  People will just stock-up on ammunition before any legislation takes effect.  And those who reload their own ammunition and blanks will just keep doing it.  So what’s the problem?”

Well, if you look at the sample legislation proposal, you’ll see where they want “all handgun and assault weapon ammunition manufactured or sold in the state after January 1, 2009, to be coded by the manufacturer” along with a list of calibers required to have the codes.  That’s a little hard to enforce at this date if the individual state hasn’t adopted the proposal yet, but what’s some correction fluid and a date change to those who want to oppress gun owners?

But the biggest part that thwarts the stockpiling and reloading theories above is the next section.  “No later than January 1, 2011, all non-coded ammunition for the calibers listed in this chapter, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets, must be disposed.”

So….  No more stockpiling currently made ammunition.  No more reloading.  What ammunition company is going to make projectiles and casings with matching codes that some hobbyist could mix up and have non-matching numbers found at a crime scene?  The liability and threat of lawsuits will quickly squash any idea of them catering to those who’ve been reloading for years.

“And while you’re standing in line to turn over your newly contraband ammunition, you must certainly own a firearm that it fits, so why not surrender that to us as well?” the uber-liberals will chant.  Thousands upon thousands of legal gun owners who are tired of the hassle and can no longer afford to buy the ammunition they need will blindly hand them over just to be rid of the hassle, especially if a monetary “reward” is offered as is currently done in many areas today.

So let’s recap:  You’ll only be allowed to purchase the ammunition that has been coded and you’ll be required by the government to surrender all non-coded ammunition, cases, and projectiles.  Criminals who steal guns will be sure to pilfer longer through your personal belongings looking for every last coded round so they’ll be able to pass blame on you since they (well, most anyway) won’t be stupid enough to purchase their own.

You’ll have to ensure that you pick up every shell casing you arrived with at the gun range and hope some unscrupulous person doesn’t pocket one of yours to use in illegal reloading.  Plastic ammunition casings, such as those used in shotguns, can’t be etched so many crimes will be committed with shotguns, for which the desire will increase and more will be stolen.  Yes, the metal bases of the shotgun cartridges can be etched, but for now the individual pellets can’t — but I’m sure they’re working on that as we speak.

It will take up to three weeks to produce the amount of ammunition made daily when the etching system is added.  No imported ammunition will be allowed because it’s not etched — so there goes firing some of your collectible firearms more inexpensively or if no American companies make that caliber.  You’d be required to keep meticulous records if you buy, sell, or loan ammunition even with friends and family members.  Oh, and they quietly tuck in a five cent-per-round tax for good measure.  It’s not only effective when your originally purchase the rounds but if you transfer them as well, which will be properly documented in your paperwork for every individual serial number registered in the official database, right?

Don’t think you’re safe if you’re a black powder enthusiast/re-enactor/hunter.  It’s only small stretch of the imagination to know that if they won’t allow you to make your own projectiles for cartridge ammunition they won’t allow you to cast your own or even purchase black powder itself.  Besides, they’ll write it under environmental legislation because lead is bad for you anyway and get away with it.

So let’s get back to the question of “Where is the NRA?”  It’s my personal belief that because HR 1022 which would ban several types of firearms isn’t a huge media sensation they’ve decided not to worry about it.  And because Ammunition Accountability is working on a grassroots platform and dealing with the states instead of a national audience, The Ammunition Accountability Act isn’t seen as a national threat and, therefore, not something they can raise big wads of cash with yet.  Oh sure, they’re an organization that is there to help gun owners protect their Second Amendment rights — but they’re in it for the money too.  That’s what runs this country.  If we depended on human love and kindness we’d all be in a lot of trouble these days.

The Democrats, Bradys, and other anti-gun organizations are working feverishly to prevent anyone from privately owning any type of firearm.  They prey on the sheep-like quality of the typical citizen to blindly follow whatever the government says and to give up easily.  It’s up to each individual to decide where they stand on this issue.

So this is how democracy dies? Democrats plan new gun bans.

Here we are a week away from the inauguration of the first African-American president.  While this can be either an exciting or upsetting time, depending on your point of view, the Democrats have already leaked their scheme to keep the general populous down and in submission towards the elite, criminal, and, of course, themselves.

Recently posted on the Internet and passed through emails was the proposed gun ban list created by the Democrats in Congress who knew there was no way they could pass it while a Republican sat in the White House.  Now, the radical left sees its opportunity to take guns from law-abiding owners and collectors in the same way that Australia, Great Britain, and Canada have done.  Oh…and their crime rates spiked after legal guns were surrendered to the government, in case you missed that.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this summer after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s restrictive gun ban:

I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a a law that’s less pervasive.  I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools.”

I think we can all agree that guns near schools is a bad idea.  We don’t want our children in danger.  That begins with responsible parents and adults ensuring their guns are secured and that their children are educated in gun safety!  And if she’s grasping at straws to reinstate a law that was clearly struck down by the highest court in the country, you can bet Pelosi is ready to team-up again with Sarah Brady to ensure no private citizen can legally own a firearm within our boundaries.

Notice the emphasison “legally” since most gun crimes are committed with an illegally-owned or stolen firearm….but they don’t want me to tell you that.

As a “bitter, clinger to my guns” type of person, I’m not terribly happy about this.  You would think that the Democrats had learned from past mistakes — losing their majority control during Bill Clinton’s tenure because of the outrage over the assault weapons ban, for example.

Surveys conducted show that between 1.5 and 2.5 million Americans report every year that they have used a firearm for defensive purposes and that 1-in-6 believe that it saved their life.

With the proposal that the Democrats have leaked, the U.S. Attorney General would have the power to add “any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”  Wow — they’re just vague enough to encompass every type of firearm ever designed!  And remember, President-elect Obama’s pick for Attorney General is Eric Holder.  He wrote a brief in the Supreme Court case supporting the position that private citizens have no right to own a working firearm in their home.

If you’d like to read the entire proposed bill (HR 1022, 110th Congress) you can find it here.  Oh, sure, many will point out Section 4, the “grandfather provision” to those who legally own or collect these firearms.  However, if memory serves me correctly, she once said she’d have every gun turned-in and no one would privately own a firearm if she could find a way to make it legal.

What happens to veterans’ organizations and reenacting societies if they can’t legally own firearms?  I don’t think funeral services or historical tributes will have the same panache as guys stand around saying, “Bang! Bang!”

What happens when the rogue military member or police officer, who is allowed to have a weapon in their possession by the nature of their career, decides to commit an illegal act with that firearm?  The citizen being threatened would have no recourse to defend himself.  And don’t even try to tell me that military and law enforcement personnel wouldn’t commit a crime like that….read your local news for examples.

Criminals will have weapons regardless of what laws and restrictions the Democrats propose.  They don’t care about laws; that’s why they’re criminals.  Law-abiding citizens will have no way to defend themselves if their Second Amendment rights are infringed.  And don’t suggest that they should call the police to let them deal with it — in December, St. Louis Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe told his constituents to acquire guns and learn how to use them because the city’s police can’t protect them.  Ever wonder why it’s got one of the highest crime rates in the nation?

Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334)

Oh, I’m misinterpreting that you say?  How about this one….

Adolf Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms.  History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” (April 11, 1942)

Am I advocating the overthrow of the government?  Hell, no….don’t be stupid.  But even Mao Tse-tung in 1938 said, “Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’”  That’s why they’re not allowed to own any.  However, I strongly believe that my right to legally own and use a firearm has prevented me in the past from becoming a victim instead of being able to be here to excercise my First Amendment rights.

Wal-Mart versus The Wilderness – What’s the big deal?

Returning to the news is the story that Wal-Mart wants to build a new Supercenter near The Wilderness Battlefield near Fredericksburg, Va.  And, of course, both sides have decided to wage the civil war all over again with historic preservationists attacking the “Big Box Mart Capitalists.”

So what’s the big deal?  Why should either side get their dander up?

Let’s review the history of The Wilderness, where U.S. Grant first met Robert E. Lee on the field of battle and the outcome of the Civil War in the east was foretold.  Lt. General Grant arrived from Vicksburg, Ms., and took command of the entire U.S. Army and put himself with the Army of the Potomac.  His orders were to chase down General Lee.  Grant had realized that to win the war he had to defeat Lee and ignored taking Richmond as many had advised and attempted before.

On May 2, 1864, Grant led his men across the Rapidan River at three separate points and converged on the Wilderness Tavern.  It was from there that the Confederates only a day earlier had launched their attack on the right flank of the Union Army at Chancellorsville.  Grant had no desire to fight within the Wilderness.  But, for Lee, it was imperative to bring the Union soldiers into the thick woods where their superior number would prove ineffective as Grant could not bring them all to bear.  Being deep in the woods, Grant’s superior artillery couldn’t be utilized, something that Lee counted on in his tactical maneuvering.

The battle became horrific when part of the woods caught on fire.  Injured soldiers from both sides were trapped.  Hundreds burned to death before their comrades who were defenseless to save them.

Many consider the battle to have ended in a draw, but it became a huge turning point of the war because the Union Army of the Potomac didn’t retreat back across the Rapidan River.  Grant pushed his men farther south and Lee was forced to hurry his troops to Spotsylvania Court House, 10 miles to the southeast.  Although Lee’s troops had been able to inflict serious casualties on the Union, Grant pressed forward in a war of attrition.  This led to the ultimate downfall of Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.

So, knowing the history of the battle and what a major turning point it is in American history, why would someone propose building near this “hallowed ground?”

Well, the ground being proposed as the site of the new Wal-Mart isn’t owned by the National Park Service.  The Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park only comprises 2,773 acres (11.22 square-kilometers) of the original battle area.  The Civil War Preservation Trust has a copy of the map of the proposed area here.  The location Wal-Mart wishes to build on is actually across a highway and approximately over a mile from the actual area of battle.

True, it is where MG John Sedgwick mustered his troops (Sedgwick was killed at the battle of Spotsylvania Court House after declaring Confederate sharpshooters couldn’t “hit an elephant” before being shot below the left eye).  But a muster area isn’t as vital to the actual history of the battle as the front-line battle area is.

In defense of the historic preservationists who say that all of the land is sacred, the outlined positions on the maps are approximate.  No one was there drawing the maps during the battle.  The woods were so dense that it was easy for units to get lost and trying to remember where your line was became difficult.  They weren’t even able to entrench, which leaves a lot of the typical archeological proof found on most battlefields missing.  Even temporary battlements were destroyed and eroded after a few years.  Even veterans of the battle often said in their memoirs that they weren’t exactly sure of their locations.  Remember, GPS wasn’t invented back then – so all maps really have to be suspect.

Wal-Mart, even though many see it as evil incarnate for the way it moves into small towns and the mom-and-pop stores suffer, does bring jobs and tax revenue to Orange County if it is allowed to build.  The entire population of the county was listed as 25,881 after the 2000 Census, so I’m sure it could use the help.

Having visited the Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania, I can see where commercial building outside of the actual NPS area has been contested but it doesn’t detract from the serenity of the “hallowed ground” preservationists strive to protect.  I have also visited Nashville and Franklin, Tenn., where the battlefields have been completely obliterated by urban sprawl.  These important areas are forever lost and forgotten by most.

 While I appreciate the work that the Civil War Preservation Trust and other organizations do to prevent other battlefields from going the same way, this argument over Wal-Mart building a new store has been raging since 2008.  True, the celebrity list signing petitions is impressive.  But Wal-Mart also has shown that the proposed store would be built behind a bank and a small strip mall already there.  No one is asking the NPS to move any already protected boundaries and nor is Wal-Mart planning something as large as Disney had in 1994 at Manassas, Va.

The National Park Service is partly to blame for this whole mess.  Back when the land was inexpensive and available, no one imagined that people would want to build in such a remote area.  Urban sprawl wasn’t as prevalent as it is now and the land started to be developed.

The “scandal” of Wal-Mart “invading” a historical battlefield could be construed as a fund-raising scheme by historic preservation groups.  By keeping the story in the forefront of the media, more people will rush to their aid and donate time and money to crush the “evil empire” of Wal-Mart.  People who may have heard the arguments months ago may have forgotten or see the continued struggle as a reason to donate more in order to keep the land preserved.

But the land will still be preserved, regardless of whether or not Wal-Mart builds.  The Military Park isn’t going anywhere unless the entire federal government begins to collapse and the funding isn’t renewed.  Even then, it would go on sale and I’m pretty sure one or more of the celebrities on the petitions would chip in for it.  There are many more battlefields that are in more danger of being completely destroyed that could use the attention.

Return of $10,000 doesn’t garner reward from owner

Everyone wants to think the best in others, especially during the holiday season. Debra Rogoff of California is an example of the kind of person we always say we’d be like.  In October, she found $10,000 in crisp $100 bills inside a box of Annie’s Sour Cream and Onion Cheddar Bunny crackers and didn’t spend any of it.

Rogoff called the police and they feared that it was actually part of a drug money drop-off since the bills were in an unmarked white envelope.  However, the store where the crackers were purchased knew who the money belonged to.  The Whole Foods Store in Tustin said that an elderly lady was frantic after she realized that the money she had withdrawn from the bank — her life savings — had been stored inside a box of crackers she inadvertently returned.

I understand the woman’s distrust of the bank because of the recent economic mess.  Many who lived through the Great Depression might be more apt to pull their savings out for fear of losing everything.  I don’t understand returning food to the grocery store, but that’s a whole other article.

What I don’t understand is how after fearing that she had lost everything the woman who owned the money has not done anything to show her gratitude to the person who found it.  Rogoff said that she has never heard from the woman and to date has only received a replacement box of crackers from Whole Foods.  The store’s policy is to compost returned food, not restock it — so not only does the woman have Rogoff to thank but also whomever at Whole Foods inadvertently put the box on the shelf.

So much for gratitude these days…

Adolf Hitler has birthday cake issues

Maybe you’ve heard this story already, but it does lead to a controversial argument.  In Pennsylvania, 3-year-old Aldof Hitler Campbell was refused a personalized birthday cake by a grocery store because of his name.

Adolf’s father, Heath Campbell, said:

I think people need to take their heads out of the cloud they’ve been in and start focusing on the future and not on the past.  There’s a new president and he says it’s time for a change; well, then it’s time for a change.  They need to accept a name.  A name’s a name.  The kid isn’t going to grow up and do what (Hitler) did.

A very admirable statement.  And, with any hope, he won’t.

On the other side of the coin, there’s the statement from the store:

We reserve the right not to print anything on the cake that we deem to be inappropriate.  We considered this inappropriate.

Karen Meleta, the spokeswoman for the Greenwich, PA,  ShopRite, continued to defend the supermarket as she said the Campbells had similar requests denied at the same store the last two years and added that Campbell previously had asked for a swastika to be included in the decoration.

The cake requested was finally created at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania.  Wal-Mart has stated they plan to review their policies regarding cake decorations and other requests in light of the publicity of the decoration.

The family, who lives in Hunterdon County, NJ, held the birthday party and reported that 12 others including children of mixed races were invited and attended.

The Campbells’ other children have unique names as well:  JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, 1, and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell, who will be 1 in April.

Campbell states that he chose the name for his son because it was unique and most other children wouldn’t have it.  He also states that he was not raised to avoid persons of other races but to not mix with them socially or romantically and plans to raise his son differently.

He made the statement while showing off the boots he states were worn by a German soldier in WWII and touted his German ancestry.

So is it an innocent child who is being discriminated against because his parents foolishly didn’t consider what problems his name would cause?  Or is this a case of white supremacists trying to live vicariously through the publicity they believe their childrens’ names will bring them to further their “cause” for separation?

I have friends who participate in WWII re-enacting.  Some do German, and even though they occasionally have parties they would never consider requesting a cake with a swastika on it, even if it were for an “official” event.  Why?  Because they’re not Nazis and don’t believe in the policies and politics of that era, even though they re-enact history either for fun or to “honor veterans” as some put it.

So why would parents want a cake with a swastika on it?  If it were actually being used as the Hindu, Buddhist, or Jainism symbols, I could see that.  Even German-Jewish WWI aviator Fritz Beckhardt wore one as a good luck charm.  It wasn’t until the Nazi Party used it to denote their Aryan supremacy that it became a reviled symbol.

And even if this cake wasn’t to have a swastika on it, is the store right in it’s decision to deny Adolf a cake with his name on it?  Just because someone has an unpopular name, does that mean corporations have the right to discriminate?  If the Campbells arrived and asked for just “Happy Birthday Adolf,” would they have been denied?

This is an argument that will go on for quite some time in chat rooms and blogs.  I don’t have an answer for it.  It is an argument between freedom to name your child as you wish to corporate policy protecting customers from offensive material.  Who makes the decision, though?  Where is the line drawn?

Child’s letter to Santa uncovers pedophile

In Pharr, Texas, many elementary children participated in an annual custom and gave their teachers letters to be mailed to Santa Claus.  As usual, many want the latest toys, clothes, and perhaps something very dear to them.  For one 9-year-old girl, she just wanted a relative to stop touching her and her sister.

The girl’s teacher gave the letter to the school counselor who alerted authorities.  Police interviewed the girl and the man was arrested last Friday and is currently in the Hidalgo County Jail.  Reportedly, the abuse occurred over a period of four years.

With a charge of continuous sexual abuse of a young child, the relative could face up to 99 years in prison if convicted.

Yes, dear….there is a Santa Claus.  Your letter was read and Santa answered it.  With time and help from responsible, caring adults, hopefully all the rest of your Christmases will be bright.  And with any luck, your abuser will get what he deserves — and it won’t be just coal in his stocking.

Crystal Gunns resigns from school post over scandal

Louisa C. Tuck, also known as former porn star Crystal Gunns, has decided to hang up her cafeteria apron and leave the New Jersey school district where she had worked since June 2008.  In a one-sentence resignation, she stated she was “resigning in good standing” effective December 8.

Vineland Public Schools Superintendent Charles D. Ottinger stated that the school district did not wish for nor requested the resignation from Ms. Tuck.  The resignation letter did not give any hints as to whether or not the recent publicity had played any part in her decision.  Vineland YMCA Executive Director and CEO George Steinbronn stated that Ms. Tuck is still employed as a supervisor for children’s programs.

Ms. Tuck’s resignation, however, has not been approved by the school board and she can rescind it at any time before the next meeting, scheduled for January 21.  Ottinger stated that the board would most likey allow her to keep her job if she changes her mind because they did not request the resignation.

So, once again the parents who feel they must shelter their little darlings from the non-existent evils of the world (see my previous blog) have caused someone who has done nothing wrong to leave.  Ms. Tuck has not received poor reviews, nor has her previous career caused a problem except in the eyes of these over-protective, knee-jerk parents.  I personally hope that Ms. Tuck reconsiders her decision, but I can also completely agree if she doesn’t.  It is hard to live and work in an area where the moral majority dictates who is and who isn’t acceptable in society.

Captain Jack Sparrow in brig over flashing women?

So much for Disneyland being the “Happiest place on earth” — especially for four actors fired in a scandal over women flashing their breasts.

Disneyland officials state that the firings were due to a drop in popularity of the character and not the reported throngs of women flashing their breasts at the actors.  Captain Jack Sparrow was often found posing for pictures on “Tom Sawyer Island” but more likely could be located in the “New Orleans Square” near the “Pirates of the Caribbean” ride.  Some seemed to believe that women would just naturally flash themselves at the character made popular by Johnny Depp since they were on “Bourbon Street.”  The move from “New Orleans” to “Tom Sawyer Island” was made in response to the rumors and officials state that since visitors could not find the character, that wa the reason for the drop in popularity.

However, even the fired actors state that no such things happened or were what led to the firings.  It is questionable to remove one of the largest and most popular characters in favor of adding new fairy actresses to promote Disney’s latest movie, “Tinkerbell.”

Many male friends state that when they have dressed in the Jack Sparrow costumes they have most often been the center of attention from women at the gatherings — some inebriated and some not.  Perhaps the thought of being with the bad-boy of the seas is thrilling enough for them to forego modesty in a children-targeted amusement park.  However, I’m pretty sure Disney will soon return Captain Jack to the line-up as the returns from “Tinkerbell” wane.

Is anyone REALLY surprised over Blagojevich arrest?

Living in the Midwest, many of us are constantly embarrassed by the things that come out of the Chicago political machine.  I don’t live in Illinois and that’s one of the main reasons why.  The long-standing political corruptness has been a blight on not only that state’s but the nation’s political history.  With the election of Barack Obama, many said it was “business as usual” and that Washington would just become Chicago-East.  Though not as ecstatic over his election as many others, I at least held hope that President-elect Obama would shy away from the historical corruptness and cronyism.  The political appointments he’s made so far have irritated some liberals and gives hope to sincere possible change.

Now, though, Obama’s longtime friend and Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich has been arrested today on charges of trying to sell Obama’s empty U.S. Senate seat.  The FBI report even shows that Blagojevich considered giving himself the seat when those he was offering it to wouldn’t “offer [me] anything of value.”

Blagojevich has been running at a 13% approval rating lately and most people figured that he would automatically appoint himself to the vacant seat with his political future in Illinois running thin.  Following the disastrous end of Republican Former-Governor Jim Ryan, Bagojevich was the first Democrat elected to the high office in 30 years.  Since then, his tenure has been fraught with difficulties in passing legislation and budgets, often requiring special sessions of the Illinois legislature to come in and hash things out.  Even the Democratic leadership in the Illinois House, most specifically Speaker Michael Madigan, have fought Blagojevich at almost every turn and questioned decisions made very vocally.

Even Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley — part of the infamous Chicago dinasty — has disagreed openly with Blagojevich.  That’s enough to stun anyone!

But let’s look at the history of Blagojevich’s problems:

He’s linked with Antonin “Tony” Rezko and Stuart Levine for participating in a scheme to obtain kickbacks from investment firms seeking to do business with two state boards.  In April 2008 the Illinois Finance Authority accused him of offering a position in his administration in return for campaign contributions.  Friends of Blagojevich received a $10,000 campaign contribution in the same month that three Union officers from the donating entity, Elevator Constructors Local 2 PAC,  were appointed to the Illinois Elevator Safety Board.  He has been under constant criticism because of his commute from Chicago to Springfield instead of moving into the Governor’s mansion.  And, Illinois State Representatives have even begun talking about impeachment proceedings.

With today’s arrest, they may not need to impeach him….

The 76-page indictment details Blagojevich’s conspiring to sell or trade the seat for favors not only for himself but also his wife, Patti.  It’s Patti’s father, Richard Mell, who helped get the governor into office.  They now have a very public feud running between them ever since Blagojevich closed a landfill for environmental concerns.  While most would have been thrilled with the action, it caused more problems because the landfill was owned by a distant cousin of Patti’s and her father had served as an adviser to him.  The closure is still under investigation as many believe the Blagojevich administration overstepped it’s authority with the closure.

The indictment also states that he wanted to withhold state assistance from the hemorrhaging Tribune Company unless members of the Chicago Tribune editorial board that have been critical of him were fired in exchange for the funds.

And people are surprised by this?  He can’t get along with members of his administration.  He now can’t get along with his extended family.  His record, vulgar statements, and erratic behavior have made him an embarrassment to many who live in Illinois and the Midwest as a whole.

One can only suspect that President-elect Obama will be making very public statements distancing himself from this scandal.  Just as Republican candidates running for office this past election season threw President Bush under the bus in order to keep their job or argue the reason they would be best to lead the country now, Illinois Democrats must be scrambling to figure out a way to minimize any impact from this.  Fortunately for the president-elect, the plan to trade the seat in return for a favor from Obama in the future was not something actually discussed with the new administration.  So long as he can maintain deniability and ensure no one working for him was in the least bit involved, the president-elect should be safe.

View the indictment here in PDF format.

Assault with a not-so-deadly cheesburger

A Vero Beach, Florida, man is accused of assaulting his girlfriend with a McDonald’s cheeseburger.

Vincent Gonzalez has been charged with battery domestic violence and was still behind bars this past Wednesday.  His bail was set at $1,000.

Gonzalez is accused of forcing the cheeseburger in question into the face if his girlfriend after they had argued in a car and he would not let her leave.  The girlfriend became angry and threw Gonzalez’s soda out of the window, igniting the….um….brawl?  Gonzalez reportedly grabbed her arm before forcefully introducing the sandwich into her face.  Both parties then exited the vehicle where Gonzales again….attacked?….his girlfriend with the McMeat product….

I’m sorry, readers.  I can’t help laughing at this.  Don’t get me wrong — I certainly do not condone or advocate violence against women.  I don’t advocate violence against anyone.  But I’ll bet the police were having just as much trouble not giggling through the arrest report when trying to identify the weapon used.  To what is this world coming?