Reds, Reds Everywhere, But Not a Reporter in Sight: The Media Ignores the Communists at Government Union Protests

Reds, Reds Everywhere, But Not a Reporter in Sight: The Media Ignores the Communists at Government Union Protests: "

Is it just my perception or are labor protests nowadays consistently bringing out more communists and various assorted America-haters than they used to? Communists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, and other freaks have always been hangers-on at labor demonstrations but a decade ago they tended not to be a significant portion of the crowd.

As I like to say, all political parties and political movements attract kooks, but since Barack Obama became president, the kooks in the labor movement and on the left in general seem to have been multiplying like mogwai in a hot tub. The leftist protests in Madison, Wisconsin, against Gov. Scott Walker’s desperately needed belt-tightening measures seemed to inspire a lot of Marxists to come out of the (union made) woodwork.

Which brings us to a recent labor rally in Chicago at which communists seemed to be in abundance. Union members and anti-American radicals attended a protest there “in solidarity” with the horribly oppressed $150,000 a year bus drivers in Wisconsin who just lost the legal right to collective bargaining.

As RebelPundit observed:

We have noticed an alarming message, prevalent at every single left wing protest we have attended this year in Chicago and the Midwest. While each protest has an official message of a seemingly less alarming cause, such as; Anti-War, Anti-Deportation or “We Are One” with “Union Solidarity”, there is also an extremely disturbing trend of blatant and obvious promotion of a revolutionary transformation of America into a new socialist or communist type of economic system.

The radicals were in full force at the Chicago rally as shown on this video:

RebelPundit noted he had been invited to the rally by a senior employee of the screeching leftist Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois). If Schakowsky’s not a communist in ideology, she’s pretty close. She happens to be married, by the way, to community organizer and convicted felon Robert Creamer who believed in social justice so much he wrote bad checks to cover his not inconsiderable salary at a left-wing nonprofit. But I digress.

All the communists were strangely invisible to the Chicago Sun-Times. That paper reported:

Laborers, carpenters, electricians, machinists, sheet metal workers, police officers, firefighters, teachers, actors, writers and pharmacists from Illinois and surrounding states marched from corners of the Loop, waving pro-union banners and chanting “We are one.”

Not one word about all the communists in attendance.

Kind of reminds you of the Washington press corps, doesn’t it?

Follow me on Twitter and check out my upcoming book Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.

Justice Served in an American-Islamic Honor Killing

Justice Served in an American-Islamic Honor Killing: "

Arizona Judge Roland Steinle has just sentenced Faleh Almaleki to 34½ years in prison. According to live reporting from the courtroom, the judge noted that Almaleki showed no remorse after the murder, that he did not forgive his daughter, that he did what suited his own purpose. The judge also said this was the hardest case he had to face in his six years on the bench. He found no mitigating factors and sentenced Almaleki to 34 and 1/2 years: 15 years for the aggravated assault of Khalaf, 3 and 1/2 years for leaving the scene of an accident, and 16 years for the second-degree murder of his daughter. He was facing a maximum total of 46 years.

Thus, today we have witnessed Iraqi-American Faleh Almaleki being sentenced in Phoenix, Arizona for having honor murdered his 20-year-old daughter Noor and for having attempted to murder Amal Khalaf, the woman who was trying to protect her. In October of 2009, he followed the daughter, whom he had tormented all her life, to a shopping mall, lurked outside, then boldly ran over her precious, lovely body with a two-ton Cherokee jeep. He also tried to run Amal Khalaf down and managed to injure her seriously. Then he fled. Faleh flew to England via Mexico, but was arrested at Heathrow Airport and sent back for trial.

He made his escape with the help of his wife, Seham, Noor’s mother, and his son, Ali. Seham made sure Faleh had his diabetes medicine with him; perhaps she packed a little bag for him too.  Seham was no kinder to Noor than her father was. Seham cursed Noor on a regular basis and made life at home so impossible that Noor left. She moved in with the sympathetic Amal, whose son, Marwan, Noor may have begun to date. Seham soon cursed the woman who dared give Noor shelter.

What exactly was Noor’s crime? She had refused to remain in an arranged marriage in Iraq. She wanted to live in America, not Iraq. Noor also insisted on dressing like a modern, American girl—worse, she dared to choose her own boyfriend, another Iraqi-American. In her family’s eyes, she was a “whore,” a “disobedient” daughter who deserved to die. Their honor depended on her death.

Noor is not the first young girl who has been honor murdered in the United States. Daughter-stalking, daughter-monitoring, and daughter-killing by the family of origin is one of the distinguishing features of a classic honor killing. This is very different from American domestically violent femicide, which usually targets wives who are murdered by husbands who commit the crime alone, not with the assistance of their own families of origin or with the victim’s family of origin. (This is sometimes the case in honor killings.) Battered wife-murder in America is not usually an expression of a family “conspiracy plot,” nor are such killers seen as heroes.

Faleh Almaleki was convicted of second-degree murder, aggravated assault, and two counts of fleeing the scene of a serious-injury accident. He claimed that it was all “accidental,” that he only meant to drive past his daughter and spit at her. He claimed that he lost control of the car.

I cannot imagine what it might be like growing up in a family and in a culture where you know, in advance, that your own parents, brothers, sisters, first cousins, and uncles might be the ones who will one day kill you. I would think that “trust” and “intimacy” would be difficult and that paranoia, based on reality, would run rampant.

I do not believe that most Americans understand how profoundly different a shame and honor culture is from our own. I do know that the media has consistently misled American readers about what an honor killing is and who commits most honor killings in America, Canada, and Europe. Based on my 2010 study, it is clear that 91% of all honor killings in the West are committed by Muslims. Yes, Hindus and Sikhs commit the rest, but otherwise, they confine their honor killings to India and do not export them to the West. It is not relevant whether Islam, Sharia law, pre-Islamic tribal customs, a misunderstanding of either tribal law or Islam are responsible for such murders. What is relevant is that leading Islamic religious and political figures have not abolished such crimes or excommunicated such murderers.

"

Boston Professor Hails Obama for Declaring War on Deficits. Wait, What?

Boston Professor Hails Obama for Declaring War on Deficits. Wait, What?: "

To love your country is to hate red ink.

Sounds like a Tea Party slogan, doesn’t it? This concise declaration of fiscal responsibility would look at home on many a conservative bumper or amid a sea of protest signs, but incredibly, it was uttered by Boston University history professor Andrew Bacevich as—I kid you not—a glowing endorsement of President Barack Obama’s April 13 speech on the federal budget. On the Daily Beast, Bacevich declares that the 44^th president has “expanded the operative definition of patriotism to encompass belief in balanced budgets”:

This is surely a good thing. So too is the president’s willingness to finger the essence of the problem: a widespread desire for an endless free lunch—people coveting government benefits without a willingness to pay for them.

Obama also performed a useful service in pointing out that any serious effort at deficit reduction will have to target the Big Four: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security.

Regarding that last category, the president promises to reassess not only military missions and capabilities, but also America’s role in the world. In our post-unipolar moment, such a reassessment is long overdue. Yet to have more than cosmetic results, Obama will have to take on some very sacred cows and some very powerful interests.

I defy you to find a more surreal reaction to Obama’s remarks. We’ve previously discussed how Diamond Barry’s proposed budgets have been so bloated they call for new taxes by the trillions to sustain them. The president might have said on Wednesday that he wants to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years, but as Mark Knoller of noted right-wing mouthpiece CBS News reports:

Budget totals issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in February project 10 years of deficits totaling $7.2 trillion between 2012 and 2021. Another two years at that rate would bring the 12 year total to $8.6 trillion.

The Obama 12-year plan would cut the projected deficit total in half, but would leave another $4 trillion in deficits that would be added to the National Debt, which now stands at $14.27 trillion.

Separately, OMB expects the Debt to double over the next ten years to a mind-boggling total of $26.3-trillion in 2021. It’s estimated the Debt that year would cost U.S. taxpayers $928-billion in interest payments. Four trillion dollars in deficit reduction would reduce the Debt to just over $22-trillion, and still inflict $700-billion in interest on the federal budget.

If budget-balancing really is the new patriotism, then Obama falls short of the good, solid B plus range right out of the gate. By the way, Obama has decided signing statements aren’t evil anymore, and is using one to declare that he simply won’t abide by Congress’s vote to de-fund his czars. I don’t see how unilaterally disregarding spending cuts enacted by the legislative branch gets you points as a fiscal hawk. This is what Professor Bacevich considers visionary leadership aimed at cleaning up the mess we’re in?

If we assess Obama’s approach to “sacred cows” (and no, it’s not bold for a leftist to say we’re spending too much on defense, which isn’t the problem area anyway), then the grade drops further still. Consider his reaction to the substantive (if imperfect) plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), which attempts to address Medicaid and Medicare. Did the Uniter-in-Chief applaud Ryan’s willingness to make tough decisions? Did our first post-partisan president offer to reach across the aisle to find common ground between their plans, while offering substantive, good-faith critiques of particulars he disagreed with? Er, not exactly:

But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history […] These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in.  And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic […]

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy […] their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America.  As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan.  There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.  There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill.

The demagoguery is so thick you could cut it with a knife. The fact is, the Ryan budget returns discretionary spending to not-exactly stingy 2008 levels. And as the Wall Street Journal writes, his Medicare “cuts” are cuts “only in the sense of slowing the rate of growth,” and his healthcare proposals are meant to address government-distortion of the incentive structure: “By capping the Medicare subsidy, seniors would pay for the marginal costs of their care, promoting competitive insurance. That would in turn incrementally change how doctors and hospitals provide care, encouraging competition in price and quality.” And the tax cuts for the rich?

The Ryan budget outline by design does not provide many tax specifics, aside from an instruction to the Ways and Means Committee to propose a reform plan that would swap lower rates for fewer loopholes and special exclusions. This overhaul is not even a net tax cut—the instructions are to design a reform that is revenue neutral. It would hold tax receipts to their post-World War II average of between 18% to 19% as a share of the economy.

The liberal claim that this means a tax cut for the wealthy is based entirely on the fact that marginal tax rates would decline, even though the loopholes primarily benefit higher-income taxpayers. At any rate, Mr. Obama’s own deficit commission also favored lowering the rates and broadening the base for a more efficient and competitive tax code.

Mr. President, the only thing that embodies “a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history” is your vision. Your talk of what “we” can afford, what “we’ve” promised to this or that slice of the population, betrays your ignorance of a simple, quintessentially American truth: the people are not the government. Yes, we the people have a moral obligation to lend a hand to our young, our sick, and our downtrodden, but the role of our federal government is to protect our individual rights so we don’t have to watch our backs all the time, so we can focus on other pursuits, such as bettering ourselves and the world around us.

To recognize that the government can’t afford all the collective charity work our liberal betters think it should undertake is not to reject the individual’s obligations to his countrymen. Mr. President, you accuse conservatives of “changing the basic social compact in America.” America’s social compact is the United States Constitution, and we’re not changing a word of it—we’re simply reasserting it’s original, true meaning.

Arrest of Duke Rape Accuser Crystal Mangum Exposes the Left’s Insincerity & Lies

Arrest of Duke Rape Accuser Crystal Mangum Exposes the Left’s Insincerity & Lies: "

Editor’s note: Crystal Mangum, the woman who falsely accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of raping her in 2006, may now face a murder charge for the fatal stabbing of her boyfriend. This post was originally published on February 20, 2010, just after Mangum’s arrest for arson, child abuse, and attempted murder.

“She was black, they were white, and race and sex were in the air.”  That’s how a Washington Post columnist described the atmosphere that led to the brutal gang rape of Crystal Mangum by a group of Duke University lacrosse players in 2006.  You remember, right? That was the violent, racially motivated hate crime that never happened.

Mangum is in the news again, but this time she won’t find an army of race-obsessed charlatans, Marxist demagogues, and pandering politicians speeding to her defense.  The Left only rolls out that treatment for struggling black single mothers when their harrowing tales bolster an ideological agenda.  Pulling off the “virtuous victim of white privilege” shtick won’t be easy when Mangum faces charges of child abuse, arson, and attempted murder.

Guilty or innocent, the stripper who cried wolf is on her own this time.  She was only worthy of the support of Jesse Jackson, NOW, the New Black Panther Party, and the Duke University “gang of 88” as long as she was able to help weave a compelling narrative of misogyny, class warfare, racial inequity, and systemic injustice.

Two weeks after Crystal Mangum falsely accused the Duke athletes of rape, English Professor Houston Baker publicly condemned the University’s “moral response to abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us.”  In a letter to University Provost Peter Lange, he wrote:

The lacrosse team – 15 of whom have faced misdemeanor charges for drunken misbehavior in the past three years – may well feel they can claim innocence and sport their disgraced jerseys on campus, safe under the cover of silent whiteness. But where is the black woman who their violence and raucous witness injured for life? Will she ever sleep well again?

If Professor Baker and his Duke colleagues cared so much about Crystal Mangum getting a good night’s sleep, what did they do to prevent her from landing in prison on attempted murder and child abuse charges?  If her race and socioeconomic status were enough to merit destroying the lives of a “scummy bunch of white males,” why did they abandon this underprivileged black woman without getting her the help she so obviously needed?

Mangum was a deeply troubled woman long before she falsely accused the Duke University athletes of rape. Her history of mental illness and unsubstantiated rape and violence claims began in her teenage years, and alcohol abuse has been part of the picture as well.

But that didn’t matter to the Duke faculty members who seized upon her false rape account to stir up racial animosity and resentment of “white, male, athletic privilege.”  She made a convenient weapon in the race, class, and gender warfare waged by academics and abetted by the media and the reprehensible former district attorney, Mike Nifong.

Malik Zulu Shabazz, national chairman of the New Black Panther Party proclaimed, “to us she is a righteous and divine woman by nature.” 88 Duke faculty members jumped to her defense (and all but convicted the athletes) in a full-page ad that described a poisonous environment of racial hatred.  And of course, the Rev. Jesse Jackson showed up to highlight the plight of a black single mother terrorized by a culture of rampant racism and sexism.

Mangum’s affirmative action qualifications became less valuable when evidence clearing the lacrosse players forced her to turn in her righteous victimhood card.  To the Left, she was a cause, not a human being. When she couldn’t maintain the hoax, she wasn’t any less black or any less female. But she was no longer a politically useful black single mother, and thus, no longer of value to the race hustlers and class warmongers who rushed to her aid.

Once Crystal Mangum outlived her usefulness as the personification of social injustice in their heavy handed race baiting immorality play, the Left moved on without apology.  And Mangum returned to her troubled life as just another ex-poster child for the leftist agenda, a mentally unstable, alcohol soaked liar who was chewed up and spit out by people in a position to help stop her from ruining more lives, including those of her three young children.

As Taxpayers Cough Up Dough, Government Unions Demand More

As Taxpayers Cough Up Dough, Government Unions Demand More: "

Imagine going to the grocery store and noting that all the price tags have been changed. Instead of showing how much each item costs in plain dollars and cents, the new tags show a percentage. Perplexed, you track down a manager to ask what gives.

The answer: That’s what percentage of your income you must pay for each item.

That would be an outrage, would it not? After all, why should your income affect what you pay for produce? Yet that is precisely how we charge taxpayers for services provided by government.

In Minnesota, residents rushing to postmark last minute tax forms will be subjected to a leaflet campaign organized by the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), aided by volunteers from the Inter Faculty Organization (IFO). These government unions will be chanting their tiresome old manta – soak the rich. The narrative was presented in a recent email to IFO members by their Director of Government Relations, Russ Stanton.

AFSCME is planning a leafleting campaign at post offices on Tax Day—April 18^th.   The purpose is to draw attention to the fact that the wealthiest Minnesotans pay a significantly smaller percentage of their income in state and local taxes than middle income taxpayers, and they should therefore be asked to shoulder some of the state budget deficit.   This action is timed to impact the budget debates at the Capital.

Attached to that email is another from AFSCME Public Relations Director Jennifer Munt. Her call to action is revealing.

Don’t let the Tea Party own Tax Day this year.

The Left intends to craft their own Tax Day narrative. The rich are paying less than you are. That’s why there is a deficit. Demand they pay more.

In truth, the rich are paying far more in taxes than anyone else. The perception that they are paying less is created by looking at taxes as a percentage of income rather than dollars and cents. Why should we be shocked or dismayed that people with lower incomes pay a higher percentage of that income in taxes? Here’s a newsflash: they also pay a higher percentage of their income for bread, milk, gas, and everything else. When you have less money, it takes a higher percentage of it to purchase anything. $10 out of $100 is a higher percentage than $10 out of $1000. Does that mean the guy with $1000 should be paying $100 for something worth $10?

It does if you’re the AFSCME or the IFO. Their standard of “fairness,” if applied universally, would translate to progressive income-based pricing for everything. Such a scheme would undermine the function of price, effectively give away everything, and remove all incentive to produce.

This is not how we ought to finance government. Fortunately, the Left’s continuation of the same tired narrative presents the public with a clear choice. We can either maintain the status quo, and haggle over how fast to propel ourselves off a fiscal cliff. Or, we can change course by re-evaluating both the role of government and how it handles our money.

ACORN Convicted In Massive Voter Fraud Conspiracy, Legacy Media Yawns

ACORN Convicted In Massive Voter Fraud Conspiracy, Legacy Media Yawns: "

If a radical group closely associated with the president of the United States and known for its efforts to undermine American democracy were convicted in a massive voter fraud conspiracy you’d expect to hear something about it from the mainstream media, wouldn’t you? Wrong. Except for the odd FoxNews.com report and a few local reports there has been a media blackout.

On April 6 the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), that is, the organization itself as opposed to its employees, was convicted in Las Vegas of felony “compensation” for registration of voters. Sentencing is scheduled for August 10. Nevada forbids compensating voter registration canvassers because it creates a financial incentive for fraudulent or sloppy registrations.

Significantly, this is the first time ACORN itself has been convicted of a crime. The fact that the nonprofit entity was found guilty strongly suggests that ACORN’s ambitious voter-fraud schemes were sanctioned at the highest levels.

The conviction came after the 2008 election cycle during which Las Vegas ACORN officials emptied the local jails to fill voter registration canvasser slots and even put individuals convicted of identity theft in charge of the registration drive. At least they hired experts, some locals quipped, according to John Fund of the Wall Street Journal.

Mickey Mouse, Mary Poppins and celebrities living and dead have been registered to vote over and over again precisely because ACORN has been allowed to get away with polluting the nation’s voter rolls for so long.

But this is not the first time that ACORN has found itself in legal hot water. In 2010 ACORN settled a racketeering lawsuit in Ohio out of court and agreed to withdraw from the state. In the settlement with the Buckeye Institute’s 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, ACORN agreed to “cease all Ohio activity” and surrender all its state business licenses.

As Judicial Watch reports, “The group has been busted for forging voter registration applications in key battleground states and submitting falsified forms in more than half a dozen others. In 2007, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State after seven workers were caught submitting about 2,000 fake registration forms.” Moreover, there are scores of ACORN employees who have been convicted of election fraud.

ACORN’s conduct is habitual and has taken place in dozen of states. It’s time for these gangsters to face the full weight of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

On a personal note, my op-ed in the Friday Washington Times is the #1 most-read opinion article on the newspaper’s website (as of Sunday morning). It’s gratifying to know that people still care about the threat that ACORN and similar groups still pose to the American republic.

FedEx's Famous Fast Talker Returns ... for JetBlue

FedEx's Famous Fast Talker Returns ... for JetBlue: "

Federal Express's 1981 "Fast Talker" spot from Ally & Gargano, starring John Moschitta, is one of the best-loved commercials of all time. Now, Moschitta is back, but he's backing a different brand—JetBlue. New ads from Mullen, supposedly shot 30 years to the day after the FedEx spot, show Moschitta talking nonstop about JetBlue's nonstop service. The actor is older and a little rounder, but hasn't lost a beat when it comes to his rapid-fire delivery. The tie-in with the brand is a bit of a stretch, but at least JetBlue has stopped harassing regular people for its commercials. Moschitta also appeared in over 100 commercials for Micro Machines, and once held the Guinness World Record (before the category was eliminated) for being the World's Fastest Talker. He reportedly could (and maybe still can) utter 586 words a minute. One spot below; two more ads plus the old FedEx spot after the jump.

read more

"

todaze Lympian quote o the ding dong day

todaze Lympian quote o the ding dong day: "

by raising taxes you can cut spending.

It’s that simple.

"

Parents Can’t Pack Lunches in Obama’s Chicagoland

Parents Can’t Pack Lunches in Obama’s Chicagoland: "

Hey kids, say goodbye to your lunch boxes! In one Chicago-area school, packing a lunch is now banned. Apparently, mother and father don’t know best. The school’s principal does … or at least she thinks so. The Chicago Tribune reports:

At … Little Village Academy on Chicago’s West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

“Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” Carmona said. “It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception.”

Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring “bottles of soda and flaming hot chips” on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common.

When asked about the policy, a Chicago Public Schools spokesperson defended the principal’s actions. Apparently, district wide, the principals are giving plenty of latitude to substitute their judgment for the parents,’ both inside the school and out:

While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments,” Monique Bond wrote in an email. “In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom.”

Never mind that the kids don’t like the food (the Tribune cites examples of parents and students complaining). The government is doing what it thinks is best when they know parents can’t parent, right? That same logic has led to a ban on Happy Meal toys in Santa Clara, Calif., a ban on trans fat in New York City,  a soda pop tax in Baltimore, Md., a whole host of “sin taxes” by Congress, and calorie counts on vending machines to scare us from snacking.

So where do individual responsibility, choice and liberty come in? They don’t. That’s one lesson kids will learn quickly in the nanny state.

"

Navy's Latest Pew Pew Laser Gun Succesfully Sets Dinghy Ablaze In Real-Life Test Scenario

Navy's Latest Pew Pew Laser Gun Succesfully Sets Dinghy Ablaze In Real-Life Test Scenario: "

A recent test of the Navy's latest laser weapon system proved it could successfully set fire to a moving boat's engines in a real-life environment, effectively incapacitating the vessel and making boarding/plundering a breeze. *flipping down eyepatch* YAAAARR!

'We were able to have a destructive effect on a high-speed cruising target,' chief of Naval research Rear Adm. Nevin Carr told FoxNews.com.


The test occurred Wednesday near San Nicholas Island, off the coast of Central California in the Pacific Ocean test range, from a laser gun mounted onto the deck of the Navy's self-defense test ship, former USS Paul Foster

In a video of the event, the small boat can be seen catching fire and ultimately bursting into flames, a conflagration caused by the navy's distant gun. Some details of the event were classified, including the exact range of the shot, but Carr could provide some information: 'We're talking miles, not yards,' Carr said.

FROM MILES?! Holy smokes. This is a lot more serious than I had originally anticipated. Sooooooo -- what's the ruling on waving my arm around in front of the beam? Bet you I can go five seconds!
...
...
Okay we might want to fish that out before it starts attracting sharks.

Hit the jump for a short video of the laser-fire in action."