Austin Kasso confesses to robbery threat

That didn’t take long.

Austin Kasso robbery threat confession

Austin Kasso posted robbery threats (here, here, and here) against Memories Pizza, then deleted them when confronted and denied everything, then claimed he was hacked, then threatened to sue (here, here, and here).

After a day of frantic activity, he has finally admitted the obvious. Austin Kasso threatened to rob Memories Pizza, he threatened to sue when the public noticed, and he regrets nothing.

Text message transcript with Austin Kasso

Austin Kasso reached out via text message this morning, after I called him and he hung up on me. Here’s the transcript.

11:36 Kasso: Who the fuck do you think you are calling me? Mind your own business
11:39 Me: Hi, Mr. Kasso. Did you post that robbery threat on the Memories Pizza GoFundMe page?
11:40 Kasso: What does it matter to you? Do you support those freaks?
11:41 Kasso: What does it matter to you? Do you support those freaks?
11:43 Me: It’s a straightforward question, Mr. Kasso. Did you post this?
11:43 Me:
Screen shot of robbery threat
11:44 Kasso: And who the fuck are you?
11:44 Kasso: Why should I answer your question?
11:45 Me: I’m a concerned citizen who thinks one of two things probably happened.
11:45 Me: 1) You posted that threat; or
2) Someone impersonated you.
11:46 Me: If it’s the latter, I’d like to help you find the guilty party & stop him/her.
11:46 Me: If it’s the former, I suggest you retract the threat & apologize.
11:48 Me: That would be much easier and less messy than involving law enforcement authorities in Lafayette, wouldn’t you agree?
11:48 Kasso: Don’t be concerned, and I deleted the post anyway. I would never apologize for threatening a bigot.
11:48 Me: So it was your post. Duly noted.
11:49 Kasso: Its none of your business so how about you get the fuck off my nuts.
11:50 Kasso: And I didnt say I posted it, just said I wouldnt apologize to a bigot.
11:50 Kasso: I also said I deleted it, so fuck off
11:51 Me: Only the person who posted it can delete it.
11:53 Kasso: If someone hacked my account and posted it I can still delete it u idiot
11:58 Me: Ah. So you’re going with the “I was hacked” defense?
11:59 Kasso: Go suck a dick
12:05 Me: Have a pleasant afternoon, Mr. Kasso. I hope you find the hacker.

Ben Carson goofs on guns. Again.

In a wide-ranging radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, presumptive Republican presidential candidate addressed several aspects of the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. When the shooting of Mike Brown came up, Carson stuck his foot in his mouth on the subject of guns for at least the third time this year (boldface emphasis below is mine):

HH: Now you say “I don’t think that the police officer did anything wrong.” So you have reviewed and have come to the conclusion that the officer in fact should not have been charged with anything?

BC: Yeah, he had every right to protect his life. But I do think that there are probably other techniques that could have been used.

HH: All right, now if there were other techniques that could have been used, doesn’t that suggest he did something wrong?

BC: No, that suggests that he perhaps has not had the maximum training.

HH: Okay.

BC: You know, for instance, in a lot of places, police officers aren’t even allowed to go into the more dangerous areas by themselves. They’re always paired. Or you know, people use tasers, people learn how to shoot people in the legs to stop them from charging, things of that nature. And I seriously doubt that he’d been given that information.

This is just plain ignorant. No law enforcement agency anywhere in America, whether it’s a federal, state, or local agency, trains its officers to aim for a target’s legs. All of them train their officers to aim for the target’s torso.

Dr. Carson is woefully ignorant about deadly force encounters, about the laws of self defense, and about the mechanics of marksmanship, but educating himself would be relatively simple for a man as intelligent as he is. He can start at and branch out from there.

“Aiming for the legs or arms” is a foolish myth that belongs only in Hollywood.


For a previous unforced “foot bullet” from Dr. Carson on the subject of guns, see his interview with Dana Loesch, in which he tries to walk back a previous ignorant statement in an interview with Glenn Beck.

Do you see a pattern here yet?

Good fences make good neighbors

What might the implications be for the United States if Mexico collapses? Before you answer, consider that a national border is nothing but a theoretical concept if it’s not controlled, and if one or both nations refuse to preserve a distinct national culture.

If America continues to ignore its borders and downplay its uniquely capitalist, Judeo-Christian, constitutionalist culture, the only thing separating people of common ethnic descent on both sides of the US/Mexican border will be the Americans’ willingness to resist a de facto invasion by Mexicans hoping for material security.

If you’re unsure what history can teach you about the pull of ethnic solidarity, fire up a search engine and plug in terms like “Balkan powder keg,” “Kurdistan,” “The Troubles in Northern Ireland,” or “Rwandan Genocide.”

Muslim death cultists are not subhuman

Again with the beheadings.

Two British muslims ran over a British soldier, Lee Rigby, with their car in broad daylight, hopped out, and beheaded him. Then they crowed about it on camera.

I’m not surprised. Hopefully we’ll preserve our collective outrage over this, but I suspect this kind of thing’s already becoming blas&#233 in our jaded and media-saturated culture.

Amid all the outrage expressed in the blogosphere and on social media, I’ve noticed a theme that needs correcting if we’re going to keep the right perspective. My fellow conservatives often express their fury with epithets like “animals” and “subhuman scum” when they refer to the evil men who saw off non-muslim heads in the name of a “merciful Allah.” It’s understandable to use those labels, but it’s not right because it lets these evil muslims off the hook for their actions. We feel anger when we find out about these slaughters precisely because these evil men are more than just animals. They’re people, and that means they know better.

When a cougar mauls a child, we hunt it down and kill it without much passion because it’s a dumb animal with no sense of morality. Young children, dementia sufferers, and certain insane people can’t distinguish between right and wrong, so we don’t hold them to a high moral standard. But when grown men shoot fleeing children in the back or saw off the heads of helpless civilians, they earn our undying enmity because they know they’re committing evil and they do it anyway. Evil acts can’t be waved away with a concerned expression and a sadly-spoken “oh, that’s just sick.” People choose to do evil things, and some choose to do great evil. They aren’t all insane, they haven’t all been browbeaten into it, and they aren’t all merely misguided. People commit evil, for which they deserve punishment.

For you left-leaning readers who feel uncomfortable with arguments based on right and wrong, think of this from a legal perspective. The Model Penal Code (which forms the basis for many states’ criminal codes) breaks down most crimes into four categories, asking whether the perpetrator committed the crime negligently, recklessly, knowingly, or purposefully. If a man fires a gun through a flimsy backstop in his backyard and the bullet accidentally kills his neighbor’s child, we’ll likely prosecute him for negligent homicide. But we hold him less culpable than the man who recklessly fires his gun into the air and kills the child playing in her yard two streets over. Worse still is the man who fires his rifle over a crowd of children, knowing he’ll probably kill someone. Worst of all is the man who fires a bullet into a fleeing child’s back for the purpose of killing her. Even our legal system emphasizes degrees of culpability and the importance of the perpetrator’s state of mind. It’s about as close to moral condemnation as our relativistic legal system ever gets.

The moral approach and our inherent sense of right and wrong provides the strongest foundation for holding these evil muslims responsible as people who consciously choose to do evil, but you might find the legal approach more comfortable. Either way, intentions count for a lot.

I continue to try extra hard not to understate the depths that these men have sunk to. I don’t call them animals or subhuman scum; these muslim death cultists are evil, and that’s why I’ll smile when they die violent and painful deaths.

I hope you’ll do the same.

5/24/13 Update: The Brits have become men without chests. We’re headed down the same road, sadly.

What if Republican politicians took foreign money?

Imagine if this news hit the wires in 2004. I suspect the media would have been interested:

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Bush and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.

Now substitute the name “Obama” for “Bush,” and change the date to 2012. Will the media bury the story? Time will tell.

Does gun control reduce violent crime?

If it could be shown by statistical studies that violent crime rates in counties with Policy X were lower than violent crime rates in counties without Policy X, and further that counties switching to Policy X saw a drop in their violent crime rate, and all of those statistics were carefully controlled to isolate the effect of Policy X alone, then what would you conclude?

Now what if Policy X turned out to be “shall issue” concealed firearm permits?

For further understanding of what, exactly, we have the right to keep and bear, read my paper on the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms.”

12:10 PM Update: For those who are unfamiliar with the legal term “shall issue,” read the Buckeye Firearms Association’s excellent summary in layman’s terms.

Barack Nixon Obama tries to hide the cover-up

Barack Nixon ObamaWhy has President Obama invoked executive privilege to avoid turning over documents to Congress involving Operation Fast & Furious, which shipped thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, who then used them to murder hundreds of Mexicans and USBP Agent Brian Terry? Obama asserts that the documents he’s hiding don’t reveal that he or his advisors authorized the scheme, or that they tried to cover it up. He claims that all he’s hiding is confidential advice offered by his staff on how best to run the Executive Branch.

Imagine that the Bush Administration actually authorized Operation Fast & Furious, as the Obama Administration would like us to believe. Do you honestly think that they’d pass up the opportunity to blame Bush for all of that blood?

C’mon now. This is a cover-up, pure and simple. The Obama Administration’s corrupt lust for power and blind devotion to extremist progressive ideology got a lot of people killed, they know it’ll damage them on Election Day, and they value re-election over justice for murder victims and the preservation of the U.S. Constitution.

Mona Del Hirst, cybercriminal?

Mona Del Hirst may claim she was just engaged in “performance art” at 2225 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, Utah on March 22, 2012 when she hacked into Tea Party activist Anna Jones’ Facebook account and helped her “art loving” progressive friends impersonate Miss Jones. However, she was possibly engaged in a crime under Utah law.

Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 6
Section 703.   Computer crimes and penalties.

(1) A person who without authorization gains or attempts to gain access to and alters, damages, destroys, discloses, or modifies any computer, computer network, computer property, computer system, computer program, computer data or software, and thereby causes damage to another, or obtains money, property, information, or a benefit for any person without legal right, is guilty of:
(a) a class B misdemeanor when:
(i) the damage caused or the value of the money, property, or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is less than $500; or
(ii) the information obtained is not confidential;

(b) a class A misdemeanor when the damage caused or the value of the money, property, or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is or exceeds $500 but is less than $1,500;
(c) a third degree felony when the damage caused or the value of the money, property, or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is or exceeds $1,500 but is less than $5,000;
(d) a second degree felony when the damage caused or the value of the money, property, or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is or exceeds $5,000; or
(e) a third degree felony when:
(i) the property or benefit obtained or sought to be obtained is a license or entitlement;
(ii) the damage is to the license or entitlement of another person; or
(iii) the information obtained is confidential; or
(iv) in gaining access the person breaches or breaks through a security system.

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b), a person who intentionally or knowingly and without authorization gains or attempts to gain access to a computer, computer network, computer property, or computer system under circumstances not otherwise constituting an offense under this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (2)(a), a retailer that uses an electronic product identification or tracking system, or other technology to identify, track, or price goods is not guilty of a violation of Subsection (2)(a) if the equipment designed to read the electronic product identification or tracking system data and used by the retailer to identify, track, or price goods is located within the retailer’s location.

(3) A person who uses or knowingly allows another person to use any computer, computer network, computer property, or computer system, program, or software to devise or execute any artifice or scheme to defraud or to obtain money, property, services, or other things of value by false pretenses, promises, or representations, is guilty of an offense based on the value of the money, property, services, or things of value, in the degree set forth in Subsection 76-10-1801(1).
(4) A person who intentionally or knowingly and without authorization, interferes with or interrupts computer services to another authorized to receive the services is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
(5) It is an affirmative defense to Subsections (1) and (2) that a person obtained access or attempted to obtain access in response to, and for the purpose of protecting against or investigating, a prior attempted or successful breach of security of a computer, computer network, computer property, computer system whose security the person is authorized or entitled to protect, and the access attempted or obtained was no greater than reasonably necessary for that purpose.

If Ms. Hirst is found guilty of a Class B misdemeanor, she can be jailed for up to six months. For a Class A misdemeanor, the jail term can be up to a year. For a third degree felony, she can be jailed for up to five years. I hope she earned enough from her little “performance” to cover her attorney’s fees.

The smug “patrons” who participated in her crime “art” had better hope they can’t be identified by prosecutors.

Hey, sucker, Tom with “Home Security” has a deal for you

At 6:57 PM EST, a telemarketer identifying himself as Tom with a company supposedly named “Home Security” in Los Angeles just called my cell phone, which is on the federal Do Not Call List. After I tried unsuccessfully to extract his company’s address and he hung up, I did a quick Google search and found this.

Same guy, same voice, same sales pitch, same slimy evasion. The number he supposedly called from is (971) 220-1019 in Gresham, Oregon.

Tom from Home Security

Or is “Tom” actually a computer?

The Occupy movement vs. the police

Chief of Police Joel Shults of Adams State College has a point.

The Occupy movement was met with great restraint by political leaders all over the country until push literally came to shove. And guess who got to do the shoving? That’s right — your friendly neighborhood armed government agents. Mayors and college presidents and governors have their private armies to do what begging, negotiating, and persuasion cannot — the police officer. Why don’t mayors send in a phalanx of social workers or public relations staff? How about the street cleaning guys or the city engineer’s office? Are the interns in the mail room so busy they can’t go down to the park and get some trespassers to move along? Or hey, get the firefighters — they have uniforms and everybody loves firefighters!

Why the police? One word: force. We have the license to hurt. Gosh, that sounds mean — and on video, it looks even meaner.

The thought process goes like this: person violates law, politician looks the other way, violator decides to continue to violate law, politician decides law should be enforced and warns violator, violator decides to continue to break law, politician orders police to enforce law, police confront violator, violator still breaks law, police exercise force to gain compliance, violator screams bloody murder, politician investigates cops for using force.

Since in all likelihood the Occupy movement will be back once the weather warms up and the Democrat Party needs their help ginning up the leftist base for the election, Chief Shults has an interesting idea for police caught in the middle.  Follow the link above to find out what it is.

Since the Occupy movement is joined at the hip with the labor movement, I find the whole situation darkly funny.  Police officers tend to be members of unions themselves.  Government employee unions are some of the most corrupt and dangerous organizations in the country, and now they’ll be cracking each other’s skulls while advancing “solidarity” and the re-election of their Democrat friends.