Some 15,000 Americans died last year because they didn’t have it. As many as five million more experienced a significant reduction in their quality of life, including mental and emotional trauma as well as diminished health, without it. Although large majorities of those Americans fortunate enough to have it are satisfied with what they have, many of the poor who need it most desperately simply cannot afford it. The government already exercises a great deal of control over it. Lives could be saved if we made its purchase mandatory, and subsidized those of limited means, to make ownership universal.
No, not health care. Guns.
Legal gun ownership by law-abiding citizens brings a dramatic reduction in violent crime. The city of Kennesaw, Georgia, took the novel step of passing an ordinance requiring heads of household to keep at least one firearm in their homes, as reported in this article by Chuck Baldwin of Campaign for Liberty. The law went into effect in 1982, and produced 74% and 45% reductions in violent crime over the next two years, respectively. Despite its population roughly tripling over the course of fifteen years, Kennesaw only had three murders during that time, and two of them were committed with knives.
Of course, extrapolating from little Kennesaw to the entire country is impossible, but studies have repeatedly shown that shall-issue and concealed-carry laws bring reductions in violent crime, while draconian gun control laws cause such crimes to skyrocket. For example, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley recently blamed the Fort Hood shootings on “America’s love affair with guns.” As Madison Conservative pointed out in a Twitter exchange, Chicago experienced 32 shootings in a single weekend, back in April, although it has draconian handgun laws. Similar examples are plentiful. Just about every high-crime area has tough gun control laws. ...
Somali pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama on Wednesday for the second time in seven months and were thwarted by private guards on board the U.S.-flagged ship who fired off guns and a high-decibel noise device.
A U.S. surveillance plane was monitoring the ship as it continued to its destination on the Kenyan coast, while a pirate said that the captain of a ship hijacked Monday with 28 North Korean crew members on board had died of wounds.
Pirates hijacked the Maersk Alabama last April and took ship captain Richard Phillips hostage, holding him at gunpoint in a lifeboat for five days. Navy SEAL sharpshooters freed Phillips while killing three pirates in a daring nighttime attack.
Four suspected pirates in a skiff attacked the ship again on Wednesday around 6:30 a.m. local time, firing on the ship with automatic weapons from about 300 yards (meters) away, a statement from the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain said.
An on-board security team repelled the attack by using evasive maneuvers, small-arms fire and a Long Range Acoustic Device, which can beam earsplitting alarm tones, the fleet said.
Vice Adm. Bill Gortney of the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, said the Maersk Alabama had followed the maritime industry's "best practices" in having a security team on board.
"This is a great example of how merchant mariners can take proactive action to prevent being attacked and why we recommend that ships follow industry best practices if they're in high-risk areas," Gortney said in a statement. ...
However, Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at the London-based think tank Chatham House, said the international maritime community was still "solidly against" armed guards aboard vessels at sea, but that American ships have taken a different line than the rest of the international community.
"Shipping companies are still pretty much overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of armed guards," Middleton said. "Lots of private security companies employee people who don't have maritime experience. Also, there's the idea that it's the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it's a step backward if we start privatizing security of the shipping trade."
With a strong plea to revive the Constitution’s ill-fated Privileges or Immunities Clause, lawyers for four Chicagoans told the Supreme Court on Monday that history shows clearly that the Second Amendment’s protection of personal gun rights applies to state and local laws as fully as to those at the federal level. The brief is dominated by a wide-ranging survey of the meaning and origins of the privileges clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, only seven pages of the 73-page brief are devoted to another provision of that Amendment: the Due Process Clause. (The Court presumably is more familiar with the Due Process Clause, repeatedly litigated for decades even as the Privileges or Immunities Clause has lain largely dormant.)
In a bold thrust, the attorneys for the challengers to Chicago’s strict handgun ban asked the Court to strike down three of its prior rulings: the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873 — the ruling that made the privileges clause a nullity — and two decisions limiting the Second Amendment to a restriction only on federal laws: U.S. v. Cruikshank in 1876 and Presser v. Illinois in 1886. “Faced with a clear conflict between precedent and the Constitution, this Court should uphold the Constitution,” the brief argued.
The Slaughterhouse precedent, “and its unavoidable progency, Cruikshank and Presser,” the brief said, “established that the States could continue to violate virtually all privileges and immunities of American citizens, including those codified in the Bill of Rights, notwithstanding [the Fourteenth Amendment] Section One’s clear textual command to the contrary.” Those three rulings, it added, “lack legitmacy.” ...
... Surveys indicate that gun ownership is not spread evenly across U.S. households. In fact, chances are that a substantial proportion of U.S. gun owners have more than one weapon, so it's quite possible that fewer than 200 million Americans own those 260 million guns. That means there may be more than 100 million citizens left unprotected against their gun-owning fellow citizens.
Surely everyone can agree that this is an outrage. Moreover, it is an outrage that Congress can easily fix, without months of committee meetings, town halls or tea parties. All that is required is a bipartisan, pro-constitutional bill to extend the Second Amendment's protection of gun ownership to all Americans, whether they like it or not.
Under such legislation -- let's call it the Gun Insurance Act of 2009 -- every American would be required to buy some kind of gun. Those who cannot afford even the simplest weapon -- say, those whose 2009 annual income is less than twice the federal poverty level -- could be issued $500 vouchers that would be valid only at gun shops or gun shows, and would have to be used before the 2010 Census. (Just think: What a stimulus to private enterprise all these gun sales would provide, and how many new gun-selling jobs would be created!)
How would the law be enforced? Census takers could verify that everyone they count has a weapon in working condition, and those census takers who survive could report all non-complying Americans to the FBI so it could notify local police departments, which would issue citations for whatever fines Congress chooses to impose. (Note that this proposed legislation would not require creating any new bureaucracy, public option or death panels.) Of course, illegal immigrants would not receive vouchers, would not be required to buy guns and would not be counted in the Census. ...
Americans will be able to carry loaded guns in National Parks starting on February 22, 2010 thanks to the Coburn Amendment which was attached to the federal Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 and signed by President Obama earlier this year. That Congressional mandate at Section 512 of the Act immunizes Americans from the National Park Service's gun carry ban provided that the gun carry does not violate any other state or federal law.
Most states allow both open and concealed carry of loaded firearms in public places, though typically concealed carry requires a state issued license. Another wrinkle is that some states regulate gun carry inside vehicles more strictly than gun carry on foot, while other states do the reverse.
Several recent news reports note surprise by some observers that the Coburn Amendment permits both concealed and open carry of firearms, including long guns, on National Park property. However the National Park Service seems to be taking things in stride.
According to National Park Spokesperson Phil Selleck, the Park Service is not going to go through any formal rulemaking process for each park. Instead said Selleck, the Service is going to work to "educate the public" and park employees on the gun carry rights in each park. Selleck said that federal law at 18 U.S.C. 930 continues to ban gun carry in "federal facilities," but advised that the Park Service does not consider unattended structures such as "outhouses" to be federal facilities because "employees are not regularly present there to perform official duties." [emphasis added] ...
New Hampshire attorney E.F. Nappen writes that the Firearms Freedom Acts being introduced and enacted in various states are subject to " The Achilles Heels of the Firearms Freedom Act." He argues that the inclusion of NFA (National Firearms Act) items (e.g., suppressors or short-barreled rifles) in the asserted exemption from federal authority will cause the Acts to fail in court because the NFA regulates under federal tax power, not federal commerce clause power.
Of course Nappen is correct to assert that getting the permission of federal judges in approval of the Acts will be a difficult exercise. The federal government (including its judicial branch) doesn't surrender power readily.
As the author of the original Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA) that is being cloned around the Nation, I've long known that litigating the MFFA would be a chancy proposition. But, I believe, there is more to hope for than Nappen credits.
Addressing Nappen's concern about NFA items, it is true that the NFA purports to be founded in the power given to Congress in the Constitution to tax. However, there are two sorts of taxes: 1) Those enacted and implemented primarily to raise revenue, and 2) those enacted and implemented to affect commerce. The federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition is clearly the former sort, since it raises millions of dollars the feds dole out to the states for wildlife management. The various firearms freedoms acts do not challenge or affect this genuine revenue raising. It is expected that if litigation under the MFFA is successful, it will still leave the excise tax on state-made and state-retained firearms and ammunition in place, and makers will likely remain liable for this tax.
The taxes levied under the NFA, however, are of the second sort, intended primarily to affect (restrict) commerce in these items. ...
And you thought the government was not out to screw you. According to a research report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration, over 15 million people may own [sic] $250 (and in same cases more than $400) on the tax "credit" received earlier in the year, purely as a function of how the tax break was set up by the IRS. The payment will come as either a smaller tax refund or larger tax bill. As a reminder, Obama's tax break earlier in 2009 (first of many) provided individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800 in one-time benefits. It turns out that money may now have to be repaid. And as the credit impacted 95% of all wage earners, the number of people impacted is estimated at about 15.4 million. But at least it got these 15.4 million soon to be angry taxpayers to consumer a little more than they otherwise would in Q2. And now, it is time for another "one-time" jolt to the system. [emphasis added]
The breakdown of those impact is as follows:* More than 6.3 million pensioners
* More than 1.6 million working dependents
* More than 2.5 million single taxpayers
* More than 4.1 million taxpayers filing jointly
* More than 687,000 Social Security recipients
* More than 87,000 taxpayers filing returns with ITINs
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.
"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."
The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.
In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.
"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.
"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."
Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells. ...
Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.
Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.
...
Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.
"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." [emphasis added]
A "speaking piano" reciting the Proclamation of the European Environmental Criminal Court at World Venice Forum 2009. Unfortunately it's all in German, but what the piano says is all English, and it's really neat to watch. ...
We know absolutely no one in Bush family circles and have never met former President George W. Bush or his wife Laura.
If you have been reading us for any length of time, you know that we used to make fun of “Dubya” nearly every day…parroting the same comedic bits we heard in our Democrat circles, where Bush is still, to this day, lampooned as a chimp, a bumbling idiot, and a poor, clumsy public speaker.
Oh, how we RAILED against Bush in 2000…and how we RAILED against the surge in support Bush received post-9/11 when he went to Ground Zero and stood there with his bullhorn in the ruins on that hideous day.
We were convinced that ANYONE who was president would have done what Bush did, and would have set that right tone of leadership in the wake of that disaster. President Gore, President Perot, President Nader, you name it. ANYONE, we assumed, would have filled that role perfectly.
Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush. We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11. He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone. More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us.
Honestly, we don’t think President Gore would have been much better that day. The world needed George W. Bush, his bullhorn, and his indominable spirit that day ... and we will forever be grateful to this man for that.
As we will always be grateful for what George and Laura Bush did this week, with no media attention, when they very quietly went to Ft. Hood and met personally with the families of the victims of this terrorist attack.
FOR HOURS.
The Bushes went and met privately with these families for HOURS, hugging them, holding them, comforting them.
...
We hope someday to be able to thank George W. and Laura in person for all they’ve done, and continue to do. They didn’t have to head to Ft. Hood. That was not their responsibility.
The Obamas should have done that.
But didn’t.
Wouldn’t. ...
In my previous post, I listed some (but far from all) of the practical problems presented by trying in a civil criminal court an individual (1) who was captured overseas, (2) had evidence against him collected using covert means, with (3) no chain of evidence or custody, and (4) was harshly and physically interrogated with (5) all witnesses and methods being secret.
The greatest danger posed in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) isn’t that he will go free. The greatest danger is that he will be convicted and that during his appeals the courts will ratify all of the extraordinary measures used to capture and convict him. The great danger is that the courts will ratify the rough, inaccurate and ambiguous norms of martial law as applying to all civil criminal trials.
After a couple of decades of these court decisions reverberating throughout the legal system, we could end up living under de facto martial law.
The Constitution recognizes only two types of trials, the civil and the military. The Fifth Amendment states:
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Until the Obama administration overturned two centuries of precedence, America had two systems of justice, the civil and the military. The military system played a very small and focused role. It served rough justice in the chaos of war and in places like the open sea in which no nation’s law governed.
For over two hundred years, those captured by the military outside the civil boundaries or caught carrying out military action on US soil, were tried by military tribunals. Up until the 1950s the military used drum head trials to convict and execute those found fighting in violation of custom and international law. Pirates were often hung at sea within hours of their capture. In WWII, anyone fighting disguised as a civilian faced summary execution with the approval of just three officers.
For over two hundred years we were careful to keep a firewall between civil and martial law. We did so because civil and martial law are polar opposites. Civil law is focused on protecting the rights of the accused against the overwhelming power of the state. When there is doubt, the accused walks free. Martial law is focused on imposing a minimal order on bloody chaos. It was focused on allowing the military to complete its mission and win wars. When there is doubt, the accused is presumed guilty.
Now, Obama wants to bring martial law into a civil court room in Manhattan. In order to let a civil conviction of KSM stand, the higher courts will have to overturn almost all the current constitutional protections of the accused.
They will have to overturn the requirement for Miranda warnings. They will have to overturn the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. They will have to overturn the right to face one’s accusers and to examine all evidence and evidence gathering methods. ...
If You Thought the Housing Meltdown Was Bad
...wait until you see what's in the cards for commercial real estate.
That's right, the next train wreck will be in commercial real estate. Couldn't be worse than last year's residential market crash? That remains to be seen. But it's coming soon, probably as early as the second quarter of next year, and there's nothing that can prevent it. The government will intervene, trying desperately to delay the day of reckoning, and may even succeed. For a while. But make no mistake about it, that train is going off the tracks no matter what.
Every part of the sector - from multifamily apartment buildings to retail shopping centers, suburban office buildings, industrial facilities, and hotels - has accumulated a huge amount of defaulted or nonperforming paper. It's an impossible, swaying structure that cannot long stand.
...
Problem is, instead of trying to meet this inevitable challenge head on, asset managers have decided to believe in such phantoms as the tooth fairy, honesty at the Fed, and an economic turnaround powerful enough to bail them all out. De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.
To be fair, it's difficult to envision what an intelligent, aggressive response would look like, given the breadth and depth of the crisis, and the lack of resources available to deal with it. Miller recently met with a group of asset managers from a number of different, prominent banks. They reported that they're completely overwhelmed and can't even begin to cope with the sheer volume of problem loans on their calendar. It's so bad that they're now dealing with some borrowers who haven't paid a cent in a year and a half.
What do you do if, as Andy thinks is the case, 85-90% of the entire commercial real estate market is under water relative to its financing? What happens to a property when its value drops way below the loan, a seller can't get enough money to get out, a buyer can't raise enough money to get in, and the bank can't afford to foreclose? Simple. It just sits there, carried along on the bank's books at some inflated "mark to fantasy" price that makes the institution's balance sheet look passable. The industry even has a catchphrase for the situation: "A rolling loan gathers no moss."
In the case of a retail store, a bankrupt tenant walks away. Andy looked at just the part of Phoenix where his firm does business and found 90 vacant big box stores, with an aggregate floor space of 8 million square feet. If Christmas season is as lackluster as cash-strapped consumers are likely to make it, there will be many others to follow.
The hotel business is terrible. Overbuilding based upon travelers who went into debt to finance lavish vacations is taking its toll on tourist destinations. At the same time, business travel has seriously contracted. Flights into Las Vegas, which caters to both, have been slashed so much that even if every seat on every remaining flight were filled and visitors stayed for an average number of days, the hotels still couldn't break even. In industry parlance, banks are now engaged in "extend and pretend," i.e., giving hotels three- to six-month loan extensions in the hope that things will somehow improve in the near future. [emphasis added] ...
Lance Corporal Katrina Hodge, the soldier dubbed ''Combat Barbie'' after being crowned Miss England, is joining fellow beauties to launch the Miss World 2009 Festival.
L/Cpl Hodge, who was drafted in to compete in the Miss World contest after Rachel Christie relinquished her title following her arrest over an alleged nightclub brawl, said she planned to join comrades on the frontline in Afghanistan.
The 22-year-old soldier has already served in Iraq but said she was hoping to join the effort in Afghanistan after stepping down as Miss England in July next year.
She said: ''It is something I want to do'', adding: ''People just do not appreciate the Army enough.''
L/Cpl Hodge said she thought of ''everybody involved'' after marking Remembrance Sunday with two minutes' silence alongside some of the 119 other contestants vying to become Miss World.
She told how she hoped her role as an all-action beauty queen would be positive for young people who only saw digitally-enhanced models in the media.
L/Cpl Hodge, whose parents live in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, added: ''We are taught in training that we are first and foremost a soldier. When I am a soldier I have my hair scraped back and no make-up.
''I hope it bodes well that I am seen as a more natural beauty. Me having one day to get ready for this role shows that.''
She said her comrades were delighted for her, adding: ''They all love it and think it's fantastic.''
She added: ''It's been an absolute whirlwind - in 24 hours my life has changed.
''It's been weird but fantastic weird, because I really want this opportunity.''
L/Cpl Hodge added that she had been due to be sent out to Afghanistan before she was crowned Miss England.
She was previously given an award by her unit in the Royal Anglian Regiment for her actions during a posting in Basra and has earned the nickname ''Combat Barbie''.
She said she would be ready when called upon, adding: ''I am not leaving the army. I will still be going to work - I have just got promoted.''
She said she hoped her title as Miss England would help raise funds for various military charities, including Help for Heroes. ...
It sounds like a George Lopez joke.
“Times are so bad that I saw an Anglo day laborer standing outside Home Depot the other day.”
Except it’s true.
In the latest sign of the Las Vegas Valley’s economic free fall, U.S. citizens are starting to show up in the early mornings outside home improvement stores and plant nurseries across the Las Vegas Valley, jostling with illegal immigrants for a shot at a few hours of work.
Experts say the slow-starting but seemingly inexorable trend is occurring nationwide.
“It’s the equivalent of selling apples in the Great Depression,” said Harley Shaiken, chairman of the Center for Latin American studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
But it is not only a sign of the times, they add. If the numbers of citizens among the day laborers in cities across the country continue to grow, it’s likely to increase the ire of followers of TV host Lou Dobbs and others who will see illegal immigrants as stealing food off the tables of the nation’s native-born or naturalized poor. ...
... The exclusion of these so-called "discouraged" workers from statistics means that the official number of unemployed severely understates the weakness in the labor market. If you include these workers, the unemployment rate would rise to 13 percent, or 21.3 million.
If these workers were to apply for the 2.4 million jobs available, the odds of securing a job would be 11.2 percent, or roughly the same as getting into the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
It gets worse. Another group excluded from the official unemployment report is the growing number of part-time workers who would prefer to have a full-time job. These workers are forced into part-time jobs or are forced to take part-time hours because no full-time work is available.
During the current recession, workers who are "part time for economic reasons" have grown from 4.6 million to 9.3million.
Adding part-time workers to the number of officially unemployed and the discouraged workers, as labor market expert Leo Hindery, Jr., has observed, results in a rise in the real unemployment rate to 19.2 percent, or 30.6 million people.
The odds of any one of these 30 million securing one of the 2.4 million full-time jobs available is 8 percent, the same as the admissions rate of the Ivy League gold standard, Harvard University. ...
In Close to Home, Bikel sets up her cameras in the hair salon she's patronized for 20 years. It's an intimate space where she has come to know well the surprisingly diverse clientele -- from athletic trainers and housewives to high-end bankers, actors and opera singers. Despite expectations that this neighborhood is a secure bastion of privilege, these days, when clients get in the chair, they offer a window into the country in recession: Some are broke, others don't have a plan, and they're all looking to commiserate.
Deborah Boles, the owner and sole hairdresser at Deborah Hair Designs, started the business in 1985. "I wanted a place where people can go and they can feel comfortable," she says. "They know they belong here." But it's all on the line with the current downturn -- clients come less often; some skip coloring or skip the trim -- and as Deborah watches neighboring businesses go under, she wonders how long she can survive.
Barbara, Deborah's sister, helps out at the salon, but she has been struggling with her own economic crisis. After buying a home in Florida at the height of the market, she now has a subprime mortgage that she can no longer afford. Unable to pay the exorbitant interest, she has had to take in four tenants, each with their own stories of foreclosure and unemployment.
... Please do take the time to watch the video, its worth it. I know, its NY, one of the most spoiled cities in the world, but some of the stories are so similar.
The man that lost his job as a construction manager, a well paid job, and was now driving people around to put food on the table, that’s something we saw spread in 2000 and I’ve commented before.
People, I know its impossible for you to see the similarity because you didn’t live it, but it’s there. It’s so familiar, the only difference is the language. [emphasis added] ...
...
Want to do this in stages? OK, lets call this stage B) of the crisis.
On stage A) people can’t deny any more there’s a crisis, they lose their jobs, which was a big surprise. Then the neighbor and the brother, and the guy across the street. More and more people lose their jobs. But its ok, isn’t it? Only bums are unemployed. Because a hard worker, with skills, experience and college graduate, that kind of people always find jobs…. Right?
Stage B: That’s today. That’s the video. Surprise, surprise, in spite of the skill, right attitude and fervently hunting for jobs, there’s simply no jobs to be found! People start digging into their savings or getting worse into debt. It’s a moment where people finally get it. Things have changed. You can now go months, even years without finding a job… so you just apply for anything, desperate to make a buck. And for now that works…
Stage C: There’s no more “help wanted” signs. Not even crappy jobs. Its hard even for the remisero types, there’s so many of them now.
This is all old news for us, this was us in 2002, 20003. [emphasis added]
People still get fired and it’s worse for the +40 guys. Educated, hard workers, with decades worth of managing experience, but they are not wanted any more, they are too expensive to have around, and why keep them around for other jobs when you can get rid of them and hire a kid in his early 20’s to do the same job? There no need for that type of guy any more. Just one boss now, and lots of 20 year olds working on minimum wage. That’s the recession plan to keep business afloat.
No BS here folks, never that. I’ve had people as old as my father, almost getting on their knees begging for a job. A job I didn’t have to offer because my own situation wasn’t much better. “Your family moved to Spain. Maybe there’s a job there. Anything, just anything. Driving a truck, cleaning, I’ll do anything at all”. It was sad and embarrassing to see the father of a friend to that. A man that a year ago had an executive position in a factory.
Stage D: Crime. All this brings the real danger, what you sure noticed worries me the most. Crime, everywhere and in every possible way. The bastards get more creative, more violent and why would they not. There’s no jobs anyway, things have changed, people are desperate and police can hardly keep up. ...
Posts
All Comments
