Unabomber Chic and the Low Rent Domestic Terrorist

Unabomber then and now

Remember the Unabomber? That weird, reclusive domestic terrorist guy holed up in his cabin with nothing but a copy of Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" and a box of crazy flakes, as he plotted which of his fellow citizens he had to kill in order to save Mother Gaia.  While he was out saving the environment through better bombing, he wore a mask. Even though he was nuttier than squirrel poop about the environment, he didn't want to get caught!

I noticed a certain fashion sense that Ted Kaczynski shared with many of the people we find in our streets today, on the avant-garde of protests, as opposed to American protesters in years past. When I started writing this, I was just going to highlight the differences between the Civil Rights marches of the sixties, with marchers in coats and ties, holding America flags (right side up), not wearing masks to hide who they were, and contrast them with the low rent domestic terrorists prowling the streets today.

When Milo Yiannopoulos was denied the opportunity to speak at UC Berkeley, it might have been dismissed as a unique occurrence,  the assaults, the vandalism, setting fires and rioting in the streets, but since then there have been at least three more instances of conservative speakers being denied the opportunity to speak, accompanied by assaults, the vandalism, setting fires and rioting in the streets. Mask clad thugs roam the streets of Charlottesville, St. Louis and Berkeley, spreading violence in their wake, even attacking disabled vets and grandmothers (who must look like Nazis in ways I cannot even comprehend!)  And don't get me started on the masked individuals in the pro-illegal alien/open borders rallies!
An exception to the rule, however, occurred in Berkeley, of all places, when Ben Shapiro spoke recently. The school spent by some accounts $600,000 for additional security: officers from all of the UC system campuses, salaries, transportation, overtime and the erection of concrete barriers...most of which, turned out, were not necessary.

That's not to say there wasn't any violence. At least one young lady, was stabbed in the neck for holding a sign supporting Shapiro. Not that it wasn't inflammatory! There was a peace sign on it, a heart and the word "shalom".

To a murderous Antifa thug this translates loosely to "Stab me, I'm a Nazi".

But there wasn't any widespread rioting, due, in my humble opinion, to two things: one, the officers were authorized to use pepper spray. This meant that there were immediate consequences to any bad actions by the crowd. But secondly, and more importantly IMHO, was that the police required that the protesters remove their masks.

They say that sunlight is the best disinfectant, well that seems to have proven true here. Stripped of their anonymity, and faced with the prospect of being identified and incarcerated for any felonious activity, most of the felonious activity ceased.  Whodathunk it?

I know that a number of municipalities have laws on the books about wearing masks at public demonstrations, although they are not always enforced. My recommendations to limit street violence are twofold:

One, if your city does not have an ordinance on the books regulating/prohibiting the wearing of masks at public demonstrations, write one. There are many cities that have them, Washington D.C. for example, you could copy theirs.
Pineville KY recently passed an ordinance:

The law, which took effect Wednesday, bars anyone over 16 from publicly wearing a hood, mask, false whiskers or other disguise that conceals the wearer’s identity. It has exemptions for Halloween, people in theatrical or circus productions and people who wear masks for work or health reasons.

Washington D.C. has had an anti-mask law on the books since the early 80's:

§ 22–3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.
(a) No person or persons over 16 years of age, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:
(1) Enter upon, be, or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road highway, or other public way in the District of Columbia;
(2) Enter upon, be, or appear upon or within the public property of the District of Columbia; or
(3) Hold any manner of meeting or demonstration.

Second, enforce the law. Taking the masks off these cowardly thugs is a variation of the "broken windows" theory of law enforcement. Enforce the seemingly minor laws to see a reduction in major crimes.  Force these cowardly miscreants to show their faces in public or leave.

Oh, and if you have to arrest any of these fine upstanding citizens, photograph them and fingerprint them, so that when they go to some other town to make trouble, police will have a record of their participation. I'm sure we can think of an appropriate "participation trophy" we can give them all!

Muslim woman Escapes Jail by Remaining Behind her Burqa

Muslim woman Carnita Matthews escapes jail by remaining behind her burqa

Proving once again that it's not the crime that gets you, so much as the cover up!

UPDATE 5.31pm: THE woman at the centre of the burqa row, Carnita Matthews, has a long record of driving offences and a history of not paying her fines.

Court documents have revealed that she had been fined seven times for traffic infringements before she was stopped by police in June last year for not displaying her P-plates in the incident that sparked the row that spilled over to the District Court in NSW yesterday.

Since she first received her learner licence in 1998 at the age of 33, she has twice had her provisional licence suspended for totting up too many demerit points and twice had her licence suspended for non payment of fines.

The State Debt Recovery Office had to recover the fines. Both of those two suspensions for non payment of fines were later lifted.

It is not known how many times she was physically stopped by police and whether she had her face covered by a burqa or a niqab on those occasions.

And like the woman in Florida who did not want to remove her burqa for her driver's license photo, this incident also illustrates the insanity of such a position.

Yesterday, Ms Matthews avoided jail because her identity could not be proven.

Ms Matthews, 47, from Woodbine, in Sydney's southwest, had been sentenced to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement that a policeman tried to forcibly remove her burqa because he was a racist.

But judge Clive Jeffreys said yesterday he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mrs Matthews who made the racism accusation because the person who complained to police was wearing a burqa at the time.

The absurdity of the law is that, to reach the level of proof of identity to make the case, Mrs Matthews would have been required to identify herself by lifting her burqa at the police station - what started the uproar in the first place.

Here's a thought...if your religious principles mean that much to you, ride the bus. Call a cab. Sometimes, sticking up for one's principles involves personal sacrifice.

You have the right to practice your religion. You do not have the right to drive a car. (At least not without a photo ID.) It is a privilege established by state law and subject to state regulations.
You can't have it both ways. I believe that Islam holds that Jesus was a prophet. He said, "Render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's."

Driver's license and registration? Those be Caesar's.

Update: Mark Steyn's take.

Update II:This may be a good time to re-introduce the Proof Positive Travel Burka?

Update III:My take on burkas as getaway outfits from 2007

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

"It’s Not Fascist When We do it…"

Jim Treacher has a nice take on UC decision to ask incoming students for a DNA sample:

Reminder: The city of San Francisco is boycotting the state of Arizona for reserving the right to ask people for a driver’s license. That’s the worst thing since Hitler. But asking for a sample of your genetic code is fine. It’s voluntary! And confidential! And, and, hey, it’s for your own good!

Some of the reasoning behind this questionable invasion of privacy?

...the test results will help students make decisions about their diet and lifestyle.

Once the DNA sample is sent in and tested, it will show the student’s ability to tolerate alcohol, absorb folic acid and metabolize lactose.

"Show the student’s ability to tolerate alcohol"? Hmmm. One good frat party could do that!

Sounds like the nanny state run amok. We don't want to merely advise you as to what you should and shouldn't eat or drink, but we want to be able to tell you the exact quantities as well.

What would the legal ramifications be, if any, if a student were shown to have genetically, a low tolerance for alcohol and then went binge drinking anyway? Would the school, having known this, be in any way culpable for what could happen?
Or if there is a rape on campus, any chance that DNA samples could be matched with the school's data base? Would the responsibility to keep their students safe override their promise to keep the results confidential?
Could the school be accused morally of sheltering a rapist or other criminal if they refused to share their results?

While not planning on doing any binge drinking or committing any crimes, I'm not sure I'd want the school to have my DNA just the same!