Oakland’s police chief Anthony Batts has announced that Oakland Police will not responded to 44 different crimes if planned layoffs occur at midnight. It was useful for Batts to announce the categories in advance for criminals to chose from a criminal dim sum list of free crimes including grand theft, burglary, vehicle collision, identity theft and vandalism.
If you are the victim of burglary, you will be told to make a report online and not to expect police to respond.
Here the list of free crimes in Oakland:
burglary
theft
embezzlement
grand theft
grand theft:dog
identity theft
false information to peace officer
required to register as sex or arson offender
dump waste or offensive matter
discard appliance with lock
loud music
possess forged notes
pass fictitious check
obtain money by false voucher
fraudulent use of access cards
stolen license plate
embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
extortion
attempted extortion
false personification of other
injure telephone/ power line
interfere with power line
unauthorized cable tv connection
vandalism
administer/expose poison to another’s
That allows ample room for most criminals to plan a life of crime without the risk of police interference.
This is the response to the planned layoff of 80 officers. That is roughly one-tenth of the force. As we continue to gush billions in Afghanistan and Iraq, our cities are returning to a state of nature. According to the city of Oakland, each of the 776 police officers currently employed at OPD costs around $188,000 per year. The city council asked OPD officers to pay nine percent of their salary toward their pensions. However, the union would only agree if the city promised no layoffs. The city refused.
Source: NBC.
Who gives a rats ass what the pigs do since they do actually jack now unless it benefits their ass such as seizures and duis or drug possesion something they can resell and believe me they do. If you really want to save some money fire all of their lazy slack asses since if they dont want to do their job they shouldnt get paid for doing nothing. Screw a damn pig we would all be better off without them anyway, Grab your guns and defend yourself. I plan to and that includes against the pigs.
Woosty ist noch eine Katze sagte:
“Slartibartfast, lugha gani hii? ni Kihispania t ?”
Sorry, I’m not a person who can translate things from foreign, I just play one on the internet… 😉
Swarthmore Mom,
If you get a chance Lucile’s in Longmont is worth the 25 min drive from Boulder.
http://www.luciles.com/
FFELO,
Thank you. As one of our most prominent and respected conservative traditional Republican voices, your praise is a good indication that I must be on the right track. No pun intended.
W=c,
No sedition here.
Simply looking for an alternative to the entrenched and malfunction two parties that have dominated Washington for far too long and done so much damage to our country in the process or the seriously unhinged Neocon Puppet Party, er, Tea Party.
These political parties – like the one we are proposing – are simply organizations designed to promote candidates and agendas. The GOP and DNC, and most certainly not the thinly veiled racism and theocratic leanings of the Tea Party and the lunatic fringe they attract, are not enshrined or given special protection by the Constitution to be the only choices Americans can – or indeed should – have. America is not just meant to be a religiously and culturally pluralistic society, but a politically pluralistic society as well. If the GOP and DNC don’t like competition? Screw ’em. They should have done a better job protecting our collective interests instead of lining their pockets and destroying our rights.
If we were encouraging something like dissolving or destroying one of the three branches of government (which we are not – we seek reform and reform is not equivalent to overthrow), then that would be sedition. Proposing changes to any of those branches via Constitutional Amendment is a right and a process defined in the Constitution proper as are the processes of legislation.
To form a new political party, its goals and operating principles must be defined. This is in accordance with not only American history but with the Rights of Free Speech and Free Association.
The Statement of Principles (still in progress) contains very specific language against the use of political violence and clearly states that any party member or party endorsed candidate engaging in such behavior does so without any authority or prompting from the CPP and will face immediate expulsion and/or withdrawal of endorsement for doing so. I’m still working on language appropriate that recognizes their rights as citizens in re legal forms of protest and would not disqualify them from either party membership or endorsement.
If anything, the CPP is presented as a rational and sane option to reform the Government in an attempt to avoid violence. Violence that the current path our Government is on has historically resulted in as evidenced by past inequitable regimes and their downfall such as the French Monarchy and the Roman Empire where permanent “underclasses” were created and exploited/abused. Tyranny and authoritarianism have a proven track record of ending badly for the societies that follow those paths. You can only kick people so long before they start kicking back. The CPP would like to avoid the kicking altogether – although it’s a given the corrupt and entrenched will do plenty of kicking and screaming themselves rather than see power returned to We the People. Power rightfully in our collective hands by the terms of the Constitution that has been steadily eroded and stolen by monied special interests. As long as they can control their own impulses to bad acts, there should be no issue for our stated purpose is reform to avoid and remedy oppression by legal means protected by the Constitution. Methods and tools exactly like the ones they’ve used to get us all into this mess in the first place, but like any tool, the result is only as good as the tool user.
Overthrow the government? No, not at all. We’d like to save it and restore and preserve the undistorted vision of our Founding Fathers using the very mechanisms they designed for correcting government should it go astray – political organization and legislation.
Gyges Our family used to go to Crested Butte every summer. Now I go to Boulder and Snowmass because my son works for a non-profit that is located in both of those towns.
Swarthmore Mom,
Which mountains?
Remember to drink lots of water. Elevation sickness is not at all fun.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/17/885091/-Krauthammer:-Obamas-Critics-Dont-Get-It A different perspective from a neo-con. I found it interesting. Don’t attack me for posting this as I am headed to the mountains in Colorado. lol
Woosty,
Not a lawyer, but I’d say no more than any reform party. We’re not actually speaking of a rebellion, or even a nonviolent resistance. If I catch the intentions correctly, we’re organizing an agenda for politicians to follow, some of which involve the overturning of current law.
If that’s Sedition then Newt should have been arrested.
Slartibartfast 1, July 16, 2010 at 5:45 am
Woosty es todavÃa un gato,’
Slartibartfast, lugha gani hii? ni Kihispania t ?
Lawyers et alia;
are we engaging in… >
‘Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.’?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
Far out!
Can the bums.
Keep your powder dry and dogs hungry.
BIL, It’s refreshing to see a forthrightly pro-choice statement in your draft. Missouri just made it harder to get an abortion and that on to of adopting Stupak’s language to the growing morass of hoops women in MO. have to jump through, ‘scuse me, that should be ‘laws and proscriptions women in Mo. have to obey’. I’ve been fuming about it for a couple of days and then received this from the ACLU today:
___
“From: aclu@aclu.org
Subject: Abortion coverage ban from White House
Date: July 16, 2010 5:07:28 PM CDT
To:
Reply-To: aclu@aclu.org
Dear Friend,
We need you to act immediately to undo a disturbing decision from the Obama administration. Remember all the hard work you and other ACLU activists did to defeat Rep. Stupak’s draconian abortion coverage ban during the health care debate?
Well now, the White House has decided to voluntarily impose the ban for all women in the newly-created high risk insurance pools. What is disappointing is that there is nothing in the law that requires the Obama administration to impose this broad and highly restrictive abortion ban. It doesn’t allow states to choose to cover abortion and it doesn’t even give women the option to buy abortion coverage using their own money.
Ask President Obama WHY his administration is restricting coverage for vulnerable women.
Unless the Administration reverses this decision, some of America’s most vulnerable women—those with pre-existing conditions who have been denied health care coverage on the individual market—won’t be able to purchase abortion coverage except in the case of rape or incest or to save the pregnant woman’s life.
You and I know that every woman should be able to decide what is best for her health and her family. A pro-choice administration should know that too.
It’s especially discouraging to impose a ban on women participating in a high-risk insurance pool who are particularly vulnerable and may have a special need for abortion. For example, because of the restriction, a woman with heart disease or diabetes might be compelled to carry a pregnancy to term despite its potentially damaging effect on her future health.
Ask President Obama not to stand in the way of vulnerable women’s health care choices.
It’s urgent that you send your message to President Obama right now. When you do, we’ll also forward a copy to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, whose department is putting this unnecessary and harmful restriction into effect.
Thank you for acting on this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director, Washington Legislative Office”
___
We definitely need a new, viable third, fourth, fifth etc. political party in this country.
A further, detailed rundown:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-16/obama-ban-on-abortion-coverage-sparks-feminist-outrage/
FF Leo–
Up here in Massachusetts, it’s in the mid-nineties…with about a gazillion percent humidity! Have a great weekend.
Buddha,
I have not have time to peruse this thread, but so far, kudos. (I had 115 degrees F yesterday—a cold front brought me 111 degree cold spell today so I could do this.)
Slarti,
I agree that CFR needs be priority one or two (right behind prosecution of Bush and Cheney). Way up on the list regardless of final numeric position.
Wow.
I’d like to thank everyone for the quick show of interest.
Mike,
We’ll see how much I can carry! lol
Buddha, I’ve just signed on to this worthy endeavor. I’m just glad that you’re doing the heavy lifting.
Buddha,
I agree with a long-term view of this project. Might I suggest that in the short term campaign finance reform is the most important goal – successful CFR is the key to achieving real change in our system, in my opinion.
Great Buddah. I like the change and commend you for undertaking this.