The FBI claimed that federal law prohibits anyone from possessing any insignia of the agency.

As quickly pointed out by Wikipedia’s lawyers, there is no such federal law. The statute at issue prevents anyone from displaying a fake badge to fraudulently deceive someone into believing that they are an FBI agent.

No one would believe that the Wikipedia website is an FBI agent. I’m not either. In fact, I would be insulted if someone believed that I was one of the inept and incompetent attorneys working for the FBI who sent the threat to Wikipedia.

The letter from the FBI also claimed that the purpose of the seal is to “authenticate the official communications and actions of the FBI.” So? Where does that preclude anyone from displaying the seal so that we know what it looks like. So we in fact know what the official FBI seal looks like?

To help educate the public, posted below is what the official FBI seal looks like. If you see something else from someone claiming to be the FBI, be suspicious.

Here is a high resolution image of the FBI seal that the FBI has had posted on their website since 2005:

FBI Seal

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/financial/fcs_report052005/fcs_report052005.htm

Here is another one, also posted by the FBI on its public domain website. Conveniently, the FBI titled the image “fbiseal.gif”.

FBI Seal

Source: http://norfolk.fbi.gov/images/fbiseal.gif

According to a image search on Google for ‘FBI seal’ – there are at least 228,000 pictures of the FBI seal floating around.

And new ones are being posted all the time. Such as the one just posted by the New York Times.

Enough to give the FBI lawyers a lifetime job filing lawsuits!

Dear FBI, after you get your butts kicked by Wikipedia, feel free to sue me too (and don’t forget to sue the New York Times, Encyclopedia Britannica, Yahoo, and hundreds of thousands of others). Just make sure you’re prepared for the inevitable malicious prosecution lawsuit and result from seeking to prohibit my First Amendment rights.

Here is an interesting quote from the AP about the upcoming lawsuit:

“The environmental groups’ legal maneuvers are part of broader accusations by the organizations and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that Texas regulators are failing to properly monitor, control and enforce federal emission standards.”

Read that last part again … lawsuit because Texas has failed to properly enforce federal law.

In other news, the federal government has sued Arizona because Arizona is attempting to properly enforce federal immigration laws.

No, just as Mrs. Clinton was wrong about the Monica Lewinsky claims, what the vast majority of working (or want to work) and voting people in America want is health insurance reform.

Insurance is too expensive. Insurers drop claimants or refuse to insure for trivial ‘pre-existing’ conditions. People face bankruptcy if they get sick. Everything the government touches tends to be expensive, incompetent, and bureaucratic.

What people do not want, and what the Democrats have been pitching the last month is:

“Morally” paying more to insure the insured (mostly not voters). “Morally” paying more to pay health coverage for illegal immigrants (not supposed to be voters). Fining people if they do not buy insurance (hello Boston tea parties).

Not surprisingly, people want to know what’s in it for them. So far, Obama and the Democrats have only been telling the vast majority of voters that nothing is in it for them. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s a natural reaction.

Huh?

If you think that’s stupid, dumb, and inane – you’re not alone.

Since when is having a credit card a prerequisite to being able to take a test? A prerequisite to getting a job?

Even Governor Schwarzenegger has called the Bar onto the carpet on this.

The Bar’s response: fighting tooth and nail in federal and state courts to prevent the quadriplegic from taking the test (and the harm to the Bar is what?) – and with the heavy negative, national press the Bar’s website is offline. Nice.

For the California State Bar, an expensive bureaucratic black hole of incompetent boobs that has a monopoly on who can practice law even if they have a law degree, this is a new low.

—

Update:

The State Bar lost its embarrassing battle (after wasting valuable money and resources on the issue). Sara Granda passed the bar and has been hired by the state to work in the Department of Health Services. Congrats Sara.

Good.

One small step in saving taxpayer money is not having to pay for his food. Let him starve.

Of course, the real world steps in and he is being forced fed, attorneys are involved, etc. In other words, more of a drain on taxpayer money.

However, at the outset of the opinion, the Justices said this:

“[O]ur task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

If you’re not that familiar with the courts and judicial opinions, you almost never see anything like that stated. It is not relevant to the opinion. In fact, it tends to undermine the opinion: ‘Here, let me hold my nose while I tell you my ruling is in my view stinky.’

To me, it sounds like the Justices do not want to be recalled because of their decision.

Amazing, the Supreme Court has to come out and say their role is to determine the constitutionality of the proposition, regardless of their personal beliefs. I don’t know about you, but aren’t they supposed to do that in every case? By implication, does this mean other opinions without this self-serving statement are based on their personal beliefs and not the law?

I can only imagine the harsh response from the court if an attorney filed a brief saying: ‘Your honor, my client was found guilty of being a scumbag murderer that deserves the death penalty. I am not going to disclose my personal beliefs about the guilt of my client based on the evidence or whether it is wise or in the public interest for my client to mingle with honest citizens, because just applying legal rules, my client should be released.’

How about this: a statement of decision with concise legal analysis, without any unnecessary personal references or academic lectures about the role of the court.

Why stop there? Banning the Internet, cell phone service, all communications, weapons, and maybe even food, would also serve to thwart terrorists.

How many terrorist attacks have there been in California due to online mapping services? Zero.

I’m sure that if the bill passes (even if not struck down as unconstitutional infringement on free speech and/or interstate commerce), would be terrorists will be saying “Shucks. Now that Google’s online mapping services are not as clear we’ll have to give up our planned attacks and play tiddlywinks instead.”

Usually, such pea-brained ideas from lord legislators deciding what the California flock cannot do, say, hear, or participate in – come from Democrats. Joel Anderson, though, is a Republican from Alpine – a tiny rural county no terrorist has ever heard of or cares about.

Instead of attacking a California success story – Google – our mighty protector of freedom Joel Anderson might want to consider what happens if a non-California based company, perhaps from China, offers similar online mapping!

Whoops. No increased security. Just more damage inflicted on California business and the economy. Thanks Joel.

That is an 82 PERCENT INCREASE IN SPENDING OVER 10 YEARS.

Yikes.

State revenue (taxes) have increased from $58.6 billion in 1999 to about $97 billion in 2008, dropping to $82.7 billion in 2009. Using the 2009 figure, that is a 41 percent increase. Using the 2008 revenue figure, a 65 percent increase.

Any way you look at it, 82 percent is far, far higher than the rate of inflation.

During the past decade the aggregate inflation rate has been 32 percent.

In other words, California’s spending has increased at 156 percent the rate of inflation.

California has a spending problem.

Let me put this straight – this idiotic idea is not from a conservative.

Wouldn’t it be nice if your mortgage principal, and interest, ratcheted down just because your home temporarily became worth less. Or, because you were behind in payments because you weren’t paying your loan.

He wants to soak all taxpayers, including responsible homeowners, to help a few.

Who gets helped? Ah, the golden question.

Apparently, only those behind in their payments, or those owing more than their home is worth, or those with rates about to adjust up beyond what they can afford.

So, if you want a better loan and lower interest rate, better stop paying your mortgage!

Who cares. The lender will be paid in full by the government. The taxpayers (you, me, and everyone else) absorbs a huge loss, and you get a better mortgage loan.

Sign me up.

Who values the homes? When is the valuation made? Who determines if a future rate adjustment is too much? Who determines if you can’t afford to make payments, or are being sneaky and just not paying? Who came up this? I can’t believe it came from a Republican. Oops, my mistake. It wasn’t. It came from a maverick – whatever that is.

John McCain. American Idiot.

Does that mean if you’re not “rich” you’re not patriotic?

Does that mean Biden will voluntarily pay more in taxes than what he has too?

But then Joe Biden had this to say:

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

Unbelievable.

He wants to take my money. Money I earned. I give it to someone else who did not earn it.

The Democrats want to take my money, forcibly through higher taxes, and give it to someone else. Not because they’re needy. Not because they’re disabled. Just because they earn less.