COUNTY SHERRIFS’ HALL OF SHAME: JOSEPH G. GROODY

C212085D2008-01-01Article by Mark I Rasskazov, Editor in Chief.

Joseph G. Groody is the Sheriff of Schulkyll County, PA.  He is a Democrat.

It is difficult to find much on Sheriff Groody online.  Doesn’t seem to have a publicly accessible facebook account, google + account, etc.  It seems he has little interest in being accessible to his constituents through online venues.  Why is that?  Is it simply because, like many his age (he is 54) he is not familiar with social networking?  Or, perhaps, is it because he is so OPSEC conscious (although, why a local sheriff should have to worry about that is beyond me)?  Or perhaps, is it because he wants to be careful not to let it slip to his constituents where he stands on certain issues?  Where is this apparent fear of his constituents coming from?

There isn’t much out there on him, but I did find some interesting things about him in my research.

For example, I did find an article from the Republican Herald covering the death of Berks County Sheriff, Kyle Pagerly, which quoted him speaking obliquely on gun control.

«‘There are a lot more people armed. It’s just incredible,’ he said. ‘People do not realize the dangers.'»

People do not realize the dangers, Sheriff Groody?  Does the private ownership of fire arms worry you?  Also, isn’t a bit slimy to use the deaths of police officers to push gun control?  Especially when the shooter was using a stolen gun?  Don’t we, the people have a right to defend ourselves from people who use stolen guns?  Or is it just cops that are allowed to be armed against known criminals?

(I would have loved to read the comments on that article.  Interestingly, the comments on that article were closed…)

Or is it just that you’re only for private ownership of firearms when your department is able to get their cut?

«…However, Groody said he hasn’t heard anyone buying a permit cite recent debate about gun control as a reason.»

REALLY?!

Not to call you a liar, Sheriff Groody, but I think this might be a tad disingenuous.  Or, perhaps, your constituents simply know better than to confide in you when it comes to gun control issues.

I can’t help but think that Sheriff Groody is being a little reticent on the gun control issue — only hinting at what he really thinks.  After all, he didn’t exactly win his seat by a landslide.

In reference to winning the election, he is quoted as saying: «I couldn’t feel any happier. I was sitting here on pins and needles all night. It’s almost like I was on trial here. You’re waiting for a jury to come out of deliberations, and you’re waiting for the verdict.»  Why is it that you feel you’re on trial, Sheriff Groody?  I smell a guilty conscience.  His challenger, Dale L. Repp, a former Pottsville police chief, who lost to Sheriff Groody by a very narrow margin, criticized Sheriff Groody’s drive for a more centralized Sheriff’s department.

«‘They essentially wave a magic wand and say, ‘Poof!’ The 2,200 or so deputy sheriffs throughout the state suddenly are given full law-enforcement powers,'» Repp said. «First of all, who’s going to pay for it?’ Local law enforcement could also ease the burden on the sheriff’s office, Repp said. In a meeting with the Schuylkill County Constables Association, Repp said he found many municipal constables are eager to help serve writs and warrants. ‘They tell me they have the training, they’re anxious to do it, they’re willing to do it, and I think they should be given the chance to take some of that load off the sheriff’s office.’ Repp said.»

It’s interesting to read the comment thread on that article.  Observe the difference in demeanor and literacy among Groody’s supporters:

«GROODY IS DOING AN EXCELLANT JOB AND HAS PROVEN HE CAN HANDLE IT. GO JOE!
PUT THE POLITCAL PARTIES TO THE SIDE. THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB IS GROODY.»

Versus his detractors:

«Good luck in the Election Dale! As a former student, I saw first hand your work ethic, listened to your knowledge of the Criminal Justice system, and your experience as a police Chief in Pottsville, which you rose through the ranks to get.  They say this election for sheriff will come down to North and South of the mountain. While that may be true, the people concerned about drug use and immigration (an especially hot topic in Shenandoah) will make the right decision.»

«Issuing carry permits? Sounds like typical gun control issue to me.»

We will continue to track this story as it develops.  I leave you with this tidbit from a commenter on an article about Groody winning the sheriff seat:

«He shouldn’t have been there in the first place. He was appointed and not even confirmed by the governor! So technically his first time in office was a sham. Funny thing is that the people who work in the prison like Groody because while he’s in office, they don’t have to work. They were all afraid if Dale got in. And that’s not hearsay, that comes straight from the horse’s mouth. Say hello to 4 more years of Schuylkill County being the home of DUI’s, Suicide, crack cocaine, meth labs and illegal immigrants too. Man I’m proud of this place. Can’t you just smell the burning cannabis?»

Реклама

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN FORGETS HIMSELF

mccain-pointing-apArticle by Mark I Rasskazov, Editor in Chief.

On 07 April 2013, on the CBS show, «Face the Nation,» Senator John McCain, retired Air Force pilot, veteran of the Vietnam conflict, prisoner of war of the same conflict, and former GOP presidential candidate, made a statement that I find utterly astounding coming from someone who is supposed to be a public servant.

In reference to the filibuster being conducted by Senators Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and others, over the latest and greatest 2nd Amendment revocation bill, he was quoted as saying «I don’t understand it.  The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand.”

No, Senator McCain.  That is, most vehemently not the purpose of the United States Senate, and if you don’t understand just how deeply offensive your statement is to a concerned American voter such as myself, then it is most definitely time for you to retire.  Let me break this down for you, Barney style:

You, as a United States senator, are a public servant.  You are elected by the people in order to represent the people.  Now, first of all, all bills which limit, i.e., infringe, on our rights to bear arms and organize private militias violate the 2nd Amendment of a document referred to as «The Bill of Rights,» which is a part of the US Constitution — you know, that document which lays out the conclusive law of land, and which you swore an oath to uphold.  Furthermore, we the people, whom, as I have already mentioned, are the ones who put you in office, and whom you are answerable to, have repeatedly expressed that we do not desire the kinds of gun control measures you and your fellow aging, anti-constitutional establishmentarian gangsters have been trying to shove down our throats as of late — we rejected Senator Feinstein’s bill, which was unconstitutional, and we patently refused to abide by the UN Small Arms Treaty, which was, in every way, criminal.   We don’t want gun control — cease and desist from all further attempt to regulate, register, ban, confiscate, or otherwise infringe upon our right to carry guns.  This is not a polite suggestion; this is the mandate of the US Constitution, and the people of the United States.

You don’t decide what to do and then tell us where you stand.

We decide where we stand, and you carry it out.

Get that straight.

THE RIGHTEOUS PREDATOR

I have insight into the heart of evil, because, although, by the grace of God, I have been spared from an upbringing that would immerse me into the culture which would feed into it, I am, to a large extent, cut from the same cloth.

When a predator sees a grass eater, its instinct is to sneak up on it, tear its jugular, rip it limb from limb and consume it.

Now, we, as human beings, were designed to be predators. We have eyes on the front of our heads. We have digestive systems that can process meat. We have brains that operate more efficiently when we eat flesh. We were meant to hunt things, and tear flesh from bone. This is what we are. People can subsist on vegetables and be perfectly healthy, but in order to do so, they must eat a very wide variety of vegetables to get all the same nutrients; nutrients that we can get wholesale by eating raw meat (cooking meat damages its nutritional value, although it does kill anything it may be infested with).

I don’t say this to attempt to refute vegetarianism, which can be made to work, but merely to point out that, biologically, that is not what we are designed (evolved and/or created) to be.

All of that having been said, over time, civilization has successfully bred out the predator instinct from a large portion (the majority, I would say) of the population. We have relinquished our predator instinct in favor of a herd mentality. Rather than focusing on developing a relationship with a few strong people and subsisting by consuming the weakness out of the herd, our nature has been inverted to seek validation, comfort, and protection in large groups — the psychology of the herd; the grass-eater.

For those of us that are left, who have not succumbed to this, who are still capable of thinking for ourselves (another attribute associated with the predator-individualist), there is a strong psychological tension at work.

We see our fellow human beings, and we experience, on the one hand, a human fellowship, yet, on the other hand, we perceive in them (in their attitudes, values, philosophy, and psychology) the nature of herd.

We experience desires that offend our conscientious natures.

But those that fall prey to their desire to eat their fellow human beings ultimately becoming something else, entirely — they lose the predatory nature, and become parasites.

The nature of the predator is to take out the weak. This strengthens the herd. In corporate America, the healthy predator will frequently be in a managerial/executive position. If they are not, then they frequently experience alienation and frustration, since their coworkers will tend to have more of a herd mentality, which will be completely foreign to them.

The nature of the parasite is to take out the strong. Why? Because they have become accustomed to people willfully feeding themselves to them via the various fraudulent systems they’ve designed, and the self-confident, and intellectually independent strong (i.e., the predators) pose a direct threat to that system, which enables them to continue to enjoy a position on the top of the human food chain without having to work for it, or be worthy of it.

The entire system is unnatural, twisted, and unjust, and it undermines the viability of the human race by promoting weakness and the herd mentality. It is disgusting to independent thinker — as well it should be — and it is enabled by the philosophy of the city; the system whereby we huddle together into vast population centers until we are piled on top of each other like sheep around a shepherd; instead of being the rural, land-owning entrepreneurs we are supposed to be.

Do you hate Wal-Mart, Monsanto, MTV, and all of these unnaturally huge corporations that are making us weak and stupid?

I blame the herd mentality.

SOME PEOPLE JUST LIKE UGLY

Some People Just Like Ugly

Article by Barbara Cornell.

Syndicated from Barbara Cornell’s personal blog.

My mother took me out to buy shoes when I was I was maybe 9 years old, and while we were out I observed that there were a great many shoes that were functional, plain, ordinary but perfectly adequate, there were a few that were functional and pretty. And then there were a pair that were just astoundingly, inexplicably unattractive and dysfunctional as well.  As I recall they were some species of spike-heeled, platform wedge (yes, they were both), lace-up-the-side sneakers in a rainbow of baby-feces colors.  A lot of times, I can see something that I don’t especially like but I can, if I try, see how someone else might like it.  Maybe the color is not what I would choose or it’s more clunky or less practical than I like, but I can see how someone else might put less value on those qualities, but these shoes were just inexcusably unattractive, impractical and tortuously uncomfortable (yeah, I tried them on; I just could not wrap my head around them) to the point that I couldn’t even reason my way to how someone else could possibly find them desirable.  I showed them to my mother who said some of the most profound words I can ever recall hearing, «Some people just like ugly.»

I’m sure she was just expressing the thought that passed through her mind and never thought about it again, but I’ve thought about this innumerable times in the years since and they’ve explained so many things in so many situations.

Translation: «Some things that people believe simply cannot be explained in terms that make any sense.»

There are two issues that consistently get batted about that fall solidly into this categories: gun control and culturing uselessness among our citizens through redistribution.

make-models-in-ugly-clothesI’ll leave you with another pithy tome: A few years ago, I was the Controller for a logistics company whose safety coordinator was dead-set on purchasing «bump caps» for the forklift operators in the company as well as plexi-glass cages for the tops of the lifts.  This plan represented an outlay of capital in the neighborhood of twice the company’s best-prospect income for next three years.  I was strongly opposed to this «investment», not because I was more in favor of profits than the safety of our employees but because it was a complete waste of resources and actually increased the likelihood of injury compared to doing nothing.  The identified danger to our operators was in objects falling from the tops of their loads onto the forklifts.  It was an extremely unlikely hazard (there had never been even a near-miss in a million man-hours), but it was possible.  The average weight and height of something that could fall off the tops of the loads would easily break through plexi-glass and cause head damage to the employee, the «bump caps» and plexi-glass actually made accidents more likely, and increased the chance of injury.  We could have purchased actual hardhats and installed a different arrangement on the tops of the forklifts, but our study determined the cost would be quadruple the bump-cap and plexi-glass investment and would decrease the visibility and range of motion of the employees to the point that there would not be any improvement in safety.  I believed we should either bite the bullet and do it right or do nothing, because either option would be better for both the company and the employees than the middling proposal.  The safety coordinator was nearly in tears when she explained her reasoning: «Well, at least we can feel like we did something!»

She was perfectly clear that her plan served no purpose other than to make herself feel better when a jar of pickles crashed through the top of the forklift and crushed the skull of a forklift operator.  And, ya know, at least the guy could see it coming through the plexi.  I guess.

It’s long past time that we cease to labor under the delusion that arguing gun control and letting people earn their own living with logic, sense and facts will ever make so much as a dent in the problem and admit that those in favor of disarming the populace, paying to destroy peoples’ hopes and bankrupting the greatest nation in the history of the world have no honest belief that passing their legislation has anything whatsoever to do with crime prevention, protecting innocents or improving the lives of children.  It’s difficult to accept that there are otherwise reasonable people who will reduce their own safety, abandon their own freedoms and destroy their own homes simply so that they can feel like they did SOMEthing, even if that something simply puts a bulldozer to digging our own graves rather than slaving away with a shovel.  It will only be after we lay down our own self-deception that we can begin to see the reasonable courses of action.

Until then, we are as guilty of doing «something» just so we can feel like we didn’t do nothing as those who have given themselves over to the hysterics of «but what about the CHILLLLLDRRREEEENNNN!!!!»

CHINA — WHY IT’S A THREAT NOW, BUT NOT A THREAT OVER THE LONG TERM

Chinese_flagArticle by Mark I Rasskazov, Editor in Chief.

Bottom line: China is a huge threat to America’s sovereignty at the moment, however, over the long term, they are not — all we have to do is keep our government intact and legitimate (insofar as possible), and wait them out.

Here’s the thing: they own a lot of our debt.  Tom Murse of About.com reports that China owns 1.2 trillion dollars of US debt — more than any other individual stakeholder — and they use this debt, as well as its connections to corporate America, which, of course, feeds back into the American political machine, to influence our politics.  The Chinese government is openly coordinating with US Businesses.  This is a major problem, because it allows them to have a say in American politics; case in point, gun control.  Why would China be calling for gun control in the US?!  This is something that must be addressed on the federal level, on the state level, on the local level, and on the individual level.  Right now, it seems Americans, fortunately, are standing their ground by purchasing guns and ammo at record rates, which is encouraging.  But it is unsettling that China has so much obvious influence over American politics.

Great-Wallet-of-China

This influence is exacerbated by the fact that so much American industry has moved to China.  However, the tides are already shifting on this front, as Vivek Wadha of Forbes reports.  This brings me to my next point, which is: why China is not a threat over the long-term.  Part of the reason for this is its currency manipulation coming home to roost, however, the root of China’s inevitable decline in influence and economic power is its one child policy.

324775

China’s economy is on decline, and the reason for this is that what once drove their economy — cheap labor — is going away as their population declines.  Their one child policy will halve their population, and they have not yet relinquished it, which means it will halve twice.  Furthermore, because of Chinese cultural preferences for male children, their population will halve again even after they’ve gotten rid of the onerous policy.  The Chinese already have ghost cities created through economic over-extension, and their troubles are going to get worse, not better.  Soon, they will have one quarter of the population supporting the other three quarters.  At that point, their economy will completely collapse, and they will not be in a position too mount any kind of existential threat to anyone.

In the short term, we must closely watch Chinese influence.  In the long-term, however, China is not something we need to worry about.

LEONARD PEIKOFF WEIGHS IN ON GUN CONTROL

lossy-page1-225px-Leonard_Peikoff.tiffArticle by Mark I Rasskazov, Editor in Chief.

Leonard Peikoff, long recognized as the intellectual heir to Ayn Rand, and arguably the premier voice of Objectivism in the modern world has officially weighed in on gun control legislation.  On 11 February 2013, he released a Podcast (Episode 255 of the «Peikoff» Podcast) which contains statements which strongly indict the gun control movement.

«It is ludicrously irrational to blame guns for this tragedy (Sandy Hook Massacre).  And I have to say, that on this point the Conservatives have overwhelmingly excellent arguments.»

«If the government bans it (guns), then all that happens is that the criminals get to have a monopoly on selling it and owning it.»

Perhaps the best quote:

«I think that there is a definite motive involved in a push for gun control; that it is not just like drug control or prohibition — I think it’s purposeful: to disarm the country, the result of which would be the futility of any attempt to create another American Revolution.»

Mr. Peikoff, it’s good to have you on board with the anti-gun-control movement.  I think your sentiment is right on target.  Your statements on this matter are incisive and succinct, and agreeable to this writer.

Long live the Republic.