When we see a cover-up being orchestrated, we should rationally assume that the cover-up exists to hide criminal culpability. When we see corruption spread across the highest and most connected levels of government, we should rationally assume that the person at the top, President Obama, likely was involved.
Far Left blowhard Ed Shultz deceptively edited video of Republican governor and Presidential candidate Rick Perry in order to provide "evidence" that Perry made a racist comment, calling Barack Obama a "black cloud hanging over America."
The problem is, Perry did nothing of the sort.
Perry was speaking to a crowd about the exploding national debt being a "black cloud hanging over America." The video in full context clearly shows that the candidate is clearly talking about the debt, and nothing but the debt.
Caught red-handed, Shultz apologizes for deceptively editing the video clip. He does not—in any way, shape, or form—apologize for doctoring the video footage to support his slander of Governor Perry as a racist.
At what point does NBC News and MSNBC display a modicum of journalistic integrity and respect for their audience by suspending or terminating firebrands that fabricate evidence and tell terrible lies to deceive their viewers?
Does NBC News and MSNBC have so little respect for their viewing audience that they feel it is acceptable to lie to them without care or consequence, other than the occasionally half-hearted "I'm sorry that I was caught" non-apology apology Shultz issues here?
The news media wonders why respect for their profession has plummeted. They can find their answer with a glance in the mirror.
1
Why should he apologize? Don't you know that NBC News and MSNBC Never. Make. Mistakes? --- Oopsies, that all you're gonna get.
Sarc off/
The utterly mindless way the current news media and the mindless followers of the warped social values party (I refuse to call them liberals anymore, they aren't true liberals) continue to do this, get away with this is mind boggling. They really don't have a clue of what they are really saying or doing. And everyone is picking it up!!! I have grown to hate the word bipartisan.
If you hear it, you know it's probably a lie...
Posted by: Tibby at August 17, 2011 08:54 AM (S/Fac)
2
My problem with TV broadcast news began in 1968, with my dad shaking his head no and saying the reporter is lying(Dan Rather in Viet Nam).
You can rail away at your TV screen, and the broadcasters are glad you're still watching.
People are getting off cable; broadcasters are losing viewers. I shot my TV a few years ago-2 in the screen, one in the remote.
Posted by: Pine & Palmetto at August 17, 2011 11:41 PM (LII4+)
The Erik Scott Case: Update 14: The Officers Speak--Sort Of
Note To Readers: I've experienced a bit of difficulty posting this Update in its entirety, so I'll be breaking it up into three separate posts, with 14.2 on 08-19 and 14.3 on 08-20. Sorry for the inconvenience, but on further reflection, this will probably make a long post more readable in the long run.
Every rational police officer lives in fear of being involved in a shooting. This is so for many reasons, but a few reasons haunt the nightmares of all competent, honest cops. No decent human being wants to take the life of another. Surely, police officers train to prevail in deadly force situations, perhaps even wonder how they would perform (do they have the right stuff?) but no sane person wants to kill others.
Beyond that primary reason, all police officers worry—with varying degrees of justification—that if they are involved in a shooting, no matter that it could be used in a police academy textbook as an example of a righteous shooting, their administrators might very well throw them to the wolves. They might do it simply because they don't like them, or like Barack Obama, they never let a crisis go to waste. Police officers are strong-willed, assertive people, people used to being in control, people who don't like to back down. They tend to make enemies, and none so vicious or lasting as fellow police officers, particularly higher-ranking officers.
Officers might also be thrown to the wolves due to incompetence. Not their incompetence, but the incompetence of higher ranking officers, people promoted not because of their demonstrated knowledge or excellence, but because they were too dangerous to leave on the street, or because they are political hacks willing to quietly, and without complaint, do administrative dirty work. Finally, they may be destroyed for political reasons that won't manifest themselves until after the shooting. Perhaps the officer shot the wrong color person, or someone belonging to a minority or group currently enjoying some degree of influence and power. Perhaps the Chief or Sheriff will see political advantage in doing away with a "crooked cop," whether that cop is crooked or not. For the rational, thinking cop, there's just no way to know in advance that their agency will be competent and honest and will afford them the professionalism and protection they deserve.
Even in police agencies like Metro with powerful police unions and a long history of protecting officers involved in shootings regardless of the facts, no officer can be sure that they are safe. It is the very nature of a corrupt, highly politicized agency that introduces doubt. Being charged with a crime, particularly some form of homicide is career ending for any police officer. If they are convicted and sent to jail, it's likely life ending for nothing increases the status of any con more than killing a cop.
With this in mind, any detective investigating an officer-involved shooting (OIS) will take great care to nail down every possible detail. When they interview the officers involved, they will carefully and relentlessly question them about every possible issue and fact involved. They will leave no stone unturned, no question unasked. Because they will be making such interviews shortly after the shooting, they will have no idea whether the officers were completely justified or criminally liable, and they must approach the interviews with the primary goal of finding each and every fact, of revealing the truth, because they can have no idea what other evidence will eventually turn up and what it will mean. No investigator wants to go off half-cocked with an unsupportable theory of the case, a theory they'll have to eat without ketchup later. They also know that any rational officer will eventually get smart—if they weren't smart from the start—and lawyer up, so their first interview might well be their only interview. They'll take the time—often hours—to go over every detail again and again, to make sure they get as much as they can and that the information they obtain is as accurate as possible. They have to keep open minds, but these things motivate them.
1
Vegas metro is so fucked when they get an outside entity investigating them, be it FBI or even a state agency. NO one can support that one sided line of questioning.
I was a witness to a shooting in the 80's, bank robbers when up the street followed by two police cars. Street is a dead end. As a witness, I was interrogated by a very businesslike sergeant and a police officer wearing a coat and tie, for the better part of two hours. What did I see? How did it happen? What happened next?
Fifteen minute interviews? Seriously? That passes as diligence today?
The problem is coming that people will start to treat the police as less a trusted witness and more a common person that crime will get worse, not better. If you can not trust the police, if you can not trust those who are sworn to protect you, then what use are they?
Posted by: MunDane at August 17, 2011 08:08 AM (92+BH)
If the LVMP is so depraved, why is there NOT a Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141, FBI or DOJ investigation? Why did the people re-elect the Sheriff, if he's so incompetent? Do you not consider the DA an "outside entity"? Or, are we back to that collusion thingy again?
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at August 17, 2011 02:19 PM (/pU9a)
3
I don't know about 'a collusion thingy' but do you really want to try and justify the above interviews as complete or detailed? Heck, can you even state that the detectives were trying to get the full and complete details of everything that happened?
Because, I sure can't.
Posted by: Bryce at August 17, 2011 05:04 PM (sq7d4)
I'd settle for my questions answered, although I'm pretty sure what the answers will be. The most important, of course, why isn't there a 'color of office abuse' pending or in progress?
Ask yourself why they would NOT investigate LVMP. The FBI/DOJ have done it many times before across the country. Back in my day, those FBI fellows would show up at the thought of a rumor. Always business like, always wore nice suits and always showed up in pairs. (This did change somewhat after 1986, as there appeared a 'sense of cooperation' & communication was improved.....at least from the Miami Field Office.)
I suspect there is a reason for NO "outside entity" involvement.
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at August 18, 2011 11:54 AM (/pU9a)
Think Progress Lies About Rick Perry's Response to Reporter's Question
If someone asks you an obtuse question about someone else, and you chose to answer by replying, "I dunno, you need to ask him," is that fairly characterized by saying that the person who was asked the question was the one doing the questioning?
Do you hear that sound? That is the sound of desperation, my friends, and it permeates the agenda-driven media space that demands Barack Obama be re-elected, no matter what.
BEASTWEEK: Evil Christian Candidates Want to Rule World, Bring Back Slavery
Radical progressives are just peachy with 7th Century ideas if the offending party prays to Allah instead of Jehovah, but if you happen to be a Christian—especially a living, modern-day one—rest assured they can't wait to smear you as a nutter.
The author, Michelle Goldberg, seems to be a progressive feminist with half-baked delusions of Christanity tied together with murky and tenuous associations and assertions. It would be amusing if fellow leftists weren't so easily duped into thinking that such off-the-wall conspiracy theorizing wasn't well, the gospel.
And yet in every election in recent memory where the Republican challenger is a practicing Christian, the left trots out their "theocracy" scare card.
That Tina Brown's rage-rag is reduced to retreating to this schtick so early in the 2012 Presidential run merely serves to indicate how badly the left thinks Obama will fare.
The early panic is, I dare say, heavenly.
MIKE ADDS: I've been fascinated and disgusted by this utterly insupportable tactic of the left. The only truly political movement of contemporary American Christians was the Moral Majority, led by the Rev. Jerry Fallwell from 1979-1987. It collapsed of its own internal political and theological contradictions, and while it could claim some electoral successes, since its self-extermination there has been no organized Christian political movement that could claim even a tiny fraction of the influence of the Moral Majority.
Cal Thomas, a high ranking Moral Majority figure, left that organization in 1985 and in 2000, published Blinded By Might, in which he repudiated the imposition of Christianity through politics and once again fully embraced the Gospel. Many others have done the same.
In truth, the Christian political threat imagined by Leftists hasn't existed since before 1987. In fact, the Gospel does not support such political machinations and never has. The Rev. Fallwell and many of his followers were surely guilty of hubris, but were never capable of coming remotely close to imposing a theocracy. Ms. Goldberg and others are erecting a smokescreen to distract people from the real and continuing threat of Islamism and the related machinations of the Left. To paraphrase Shakespeare: "Methinks she doth protest too much."
1
Bob,
Thanks for the great blog and for your work at PJM.
I run a tiny low-hits secret of a blog called Si Vis Pacem. It's theme is in the libertarian-conservative interest. There is a sticky post that maintains a continuous round-up of GunGate related articles... h t t p://tinyurl (dot) com/gungateroundup
I have a different take on the Roman concept of 'si vis pacem': If you seek peace, seek first liberty. That is not to disagree with the idea of preparing war: that is a moral imperative inherent in liberty. It is also a moral imperative to speak-up and to seek wise counsel. Both of these are the bases for the Constitution's first two amendments.
Cheers.
Posted by: Ran at August 16, 2011 09:28 AM (xSeWe)
2
Toss in Pat Robertson, and his 1988 presidential campaign. He proclaimed that he would only appoint "good Christians" to government office.
Apart from that, though... yeah, you pretty much nailed it.
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea at August 16, 2011 01:54 PM (YWXmX)
Thanks for reading and for your comment. I didn't include the Rev. Robertson because his candidacy was very much a vanity candidacy in the vein of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton: he never had a chance to win the nomination to say nothing of the presidency. By 1988, whatever political power a semi-unified but always internally fractious "Christian" movement might have once wielded was long gone, and Robertson's brief campaign served only to remind Americans that theologically based politics was a ridiculously bad idea in 1776 and in 1988 as well.
Some might mistake values voters for some sort of evil Christian political front, but they vote for the kind of solid values Americans of any faith--or no faith--have traditionally respected. For these voters, their Christianity certainly informs and guides their lives, but they represent no unified, monolith "Christian" voting block and pose no threat whatsoever to anyone, quite the opposite.
Thanks again!
Posted by: Mike Mc at August 16, 2011 03:31 PM (7BLuT)
4
Mike, I understand that, and it makes sense, but I'm a lifelong New Hampshirite. Robertson had a serious campaign presence here in '88. His main goal, I agree, wasn't to win, but to pull the eventual nominee towards the religious right. Fortunately, he failed, but I do recall seeing plenty of campaign paraphernalia -- buttons, bumper stickers, signs, and whatnot. He might not have expected to win, but he certainly did try.
And good lord, did I despise him. And still do, 20-odd years later. We get to see all the candidates. I once got to talk one-on-one with Jack Kemp, snubbed Bill Clinton (refused to shake his hand), and twice saw the whackjob with the boot on his head (Vermin something-or-other).
Gosh, I love living in New Hampshire...
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea at August 16, 2011 04:02 PM (YWXmX)
Thanks again! I was sure you were aware of that, but added the comment for the benefit of readers who hadn't been following Robertson. I share your view of the man. My favorite Robertson story was something Dan Rather actually did right in interviewing him. Rather asked him if he ever said that only Christians should be allowed to serve in government. Robertson denied it. Rather showed a clip of Robertson saying just that on the 700 Club, and Robertson still denied it! Rather did that to him four or five times in a row on different matters and despite being presented with unassailable evidence, Robertson lied, time after time. Amazing, and quite un-Christian.
Americans usually make the right choices, at least until Mr. Obama.
Posted by: Mike Mc at August 16, 2011 09:06 PM (7BLuT)
6
All creation is a THEOCRACY. God is in control. When God does TAKE full control to mandate HIS OWN KINGDOM -- everything will be perfect again. I'm all for THEOCRACY generated by the Spirit, not the State. The Christian theocracy is instituted by spiritual means in the private sector. "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven". I'm all for Theocracy. Just not through the State and not by any human means. By Jesus coming by His Spirit more and more through us as we are conformed and transformed into His image in perfect liberty. God's Theocracy is the only system that produces Liberty. It's not THROUGH THE STATE -- it's through the heart -- and has power to manifest dominion spiritually with NO force or compulsion of man nor government. It is ISLAM that seeks to UNITE "church and state" to create political fascist theocracy. The Christian theocracy is in perfect liberty as God does His work by His Spirit and no force of human compulsion by man or state.
Posted by: laura at August 16, 2011 09:43 PM (M6ErA)
7
I know I'm wasting my time here, because I'm sure "laura" is one of those drive-by dipshits who thinks that she's doing God's work by cutting and pasting her drivel wherever she can, but I just can't let this slide:
laura, bite my hairy agnostic ass.
(Apologies, Bob and Mike)
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea at August 17, 2011 01:52 AM (YWXmX)
8
Wow Jay Tea, that was totally unneccesary. Since you are agnostic, someone else's free speech concerning their God should not bother you in the least.
I think your apology should go to Laura.
Posted by: Trudy at August 17, 2011 12:38 PM (yvWwu)
Thanks so much for reading and commenting. I'm afraid I must differ with your view of a theocracy, which denotes a religious government. This is in fact one of the reasons why the Moral Majority was rejected by most Americans. They understood that a theocracy is the antithesis of Christianity. All come to Christ voluntarily. One believes--has faith--or one does not. One may also choose not to believe at any time. It is only under a democracy, particularly that practiced under our Constitution, that all religions may thrive.
All forms of government are inventions of man and exist, if one is a Christian believer, because God allows them to exist. Christ was quite clear on the Christian's proper relationship to government ("Render unto Caesar..."). If we wish to continue to have the freedom to practice Christianity, we must oppose any kind of theocracy. One may believe that God is sovereign over all, but this is a matter for the realm of faith--where it properly belongs--not of government.
Again, thank you!
Posted by: Mike Mc at August 17, 2011 12:51 PM (7BLuT)
11
Well, for God's sake, Ms. Goldberg, stop going into churches. Stop listening to those people.
Start reading some of Marx, and have a nice cup of fairtrade tea. Lord have mercy, calm down, Ms. Goldberg.
Posted by: Pine & Palmetto at August 17, 2011 11:54 PM (LII4+)
The famous story goes like this: In 1912, the German Kaiser, knowing of the fearsome reputation of the Swiss for marksmanship and of the forbidding terrain of Switzerland, and knowing that the Swiss militia was then composed of a quarter of a million men, asked what the Swiss would do if the Germans invaded Switzerland with half a million men. A Swiss replied, no doubt completely deadpan: "shoot twice and go home." The Kaiser did not invade, nor did Adolf Hitler during WWII. Smart choices.
"Si vis pacem, parabellum:" If you desire peace, prepare for war. The Swiss have always understood this, and their martial tradition—and their fortunate terrain—has stood them in good stead. Even today, Swiss militiamen keep their fully automatic military rifles—real assault rifles, not the fake "assault weapons" invented by American gun banners—in their homes and frequent shooting competitions, attended by and participated in by entire families occur all over the nation.
There is a lesson in that, I think, for all who wish to remain free. Mr. Obama and his sycophants in the BATFE, DEA, FBI, DHS, DOJ, Department of State and likely other agencies understand it all too well and are always, always working with their non-governmental allies in and out of America to strip Americans of their Second Amendment freedoms. Gunwalker is only one very clumsy, illegal, idiotic and deadly manifestation of the realization of the Left that only through citizen disarmament can they ever truly control the American public.
Go here for a brief article and interesting photo that illustrates the reality of Switzerland, a nation that remains free and lives on its own terms because it understands that only free men have that option, and that only arms wielded by free men can establish and maintain it.
Letter From The Teacher #14: Belaboring The Obvious
Anytown High School, Any State, USA
To: Mr. Steven Nunsense
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: Belaboring The Obvious
Dear Mr. Nunsense:
It was good to hear from you again. I really enjoyed having Hannah as my student two years ago, and I'm looking forward to having Steven Jr. this year. You asked many good questions, and I hope that I did them justice in my last e-mail. But as I noted then, it would not be possible to do your final question justice just then. I have enough time to do that now, so I'll explain why teachers so dislike in-service classes and how that effects education.
It's worthwhile to understand that there are essentially three major groups involved—to greater and lesser degrees--in the delivery of education: teachers, principals and administrators. There are, of course, school board members, but their primary concerns are getting their names on new buildings and making sure the local football team is properly pampered (I'm kidding—mostly).
Teachers have virtually no power. They don't hire or fire, have little or no input into policies, don't make decisions about discipline, and deal almost exclusively with the daily business of presenting the best educational opportunity possible in the hope that at least some of the kids will take advantage of it. Providing that educational opportunity is the ultimate mission of education and they are the people carrying out that mission.
Principals are almost always former teachers. Sometimes they have substantial experience as teachers, but often, very little. They became principals just as soon as they could. If they are good principals, they understand that they have two jobs: To ensure discipline so it's possible for teachers to teach, and to see that teachers have everything else they need to provide that educational opportunity. If they're not good principals, they can single-handedly derail the educational opportunity train, and teachers and students can lose entire years. Even with the best principals, there is often quite a gap between the daily concerns and reality of teachers and principals. Oh yes, principals commonly make from double to four times a teacher's salary.
1
Now that was funny. In a "hold your head and stifle a scream at the beauracratic stupidity" sense.
It reminded me of my stint in the 4th grade, when they introduced "New Math". In New Math one was supposed to understand what one was doing. Well, that very night my Grandfather Griesmer revealed that he had been taught math using the same methods the "new" techniques were teaching, with the addition that he had to get the problems right. So under his tutelage I learned how to understand the problems presented, but to get them right as well.
Unfortunately I didn't pay much attention to my mom's experiences in teaching, except to note that she once promised to deck a college football player if he didn't start following instructions. This a woman who stood 5'6 and weight about 135 pounds.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg at August 16, 2011 11:53 AM (kN/gH)
2
Pretty much the same in the corporation I work for. You did make me feel sane though. I thought the MBAs from the business schools were the only nitwits, so it was just me.
Posted by: Robert17 at August 16, 2011 10:12 PM (LaaRT)
Times Reporter Eric Lichtblau's Hit Piece on Issa Full of Fact Errors, Reported Plagiarism. Bears Marks of Obama Administration Desperation
Eric Litchblau is not a reporter. He never has been.
What Eric Litchblau of the New york Times happens to be is a political ideologue with few scruples, and undeveloped sense of right and wrong, and honor... well, it simply was never in his DNA.
He was infamously part of the Times reporting team (along with James Risen)that leaked the existence of a NSA program that included intercepting terrorist communications in an attempt to politically hobble the Bush Administration. The disclosure served to tip off terrorist plotters to use other forms of communications, and was ultimately deemed legal by the federal court.
Before that final confirmation, however, Litchblau played fast and loose with the truth on more than one occasion, and even reversed the facts of stories so that he was essentially fabricating the news.
Old habits, unpunished by a rabid and unscrupulous editorial staff, once again surfaced today in a hit piece directed at Congressman Darrel Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee that has been ranging in the Obama Administration in the Gunwalker scandal and a number of other questionable activities.
Perhaps out of desperation, Litchblau's latest article simply makes up facts... those it doesn't apparently plagiarize from left wing blogs, that is. Even left wing radicals that are the Times biggest idolators are calling him out for his theft.
My big question regarding the Litchblau piece is whether or not it was even written by Litchblau. Actually, I suspect Litchblau wrote the story—at least the parts he didn't allegedly steal—but the question remains as to why he would put such a poorly researched, easily debunked and roundly condemned article, unless he was doing it as a political favor to the the Administration.
It was, after all, the White House that shopped a hit piece targeting Issa just months ago that had similarly desperate and sloppy details in a story so weak that a number of news organizations and even a left wing blog passed on it for being not credible.
The hit piece seems to confirm that Issa is damaging the Administration with his Oversight committee probes. As more federal agents, supervisors, and political appoints come forward to point out corruption and criminality, you can only expect the media to publish more manufactured smears in hopes of tarring the reputations of the men and women who just might make the 44th President of the United States the first one ever impeached, put on trial in a criminal court, and extradited to face even more criminal charges.
Update: An editorial in the Washington Examiner suggests that it is DHHS, and not DOJ and DHS that has spurred the White House attack dogs in the press to attack Issa, and they make the very accurate point that these are not just attacks, but in-kind contributions to the Obama campaign.
The simple fact of the matter is that Issa is determined and was released as chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform committee in the most target-rich environment in the history of American government... and that he is very good at his job.
1
You forgot one step where to Obama's coming political fate. First impeachment, then conviction by the Senate and the subsequential expulsion from office, then followed by charges in a criminal court and, upon conviction, time in prison.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg at August 16, 2011 11:59 AM (kN/gH)
2
We can only hope and pray. It can't come soon enough. I am afraid this Republic is being attacked from within.
Posted by: mixitup at August 16, 2011 07:31 PM (Z21cb)
The Nobel-winning economist has gone around the bend in trying to defend the failure that is Keynesian economics, and now admits that just about the only thing that can save the Obama presidency and his own delusions of adequacy are invading space aliens.
If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better –
I think the next word out of his mouth before he was interrupted would have been "off"... and Krugman certainly is.
Off his rocker.
Posted by: brando at August 15, 2011 04:34 PM (IPGju)
2
Enron Krugman is slime mold, no point in talking about him. Talking about him gives him attention his wacko mind seeks.
Posted by: Parker at August 16, 2011 01:14 AM (YD4vH)
3
iow he says the Obumistration has to invent a large enough emergency that they can nationalise all industry, conscript the entire population, and by decree determine all income and expenses, in order to get the nation out of the economic slump that same Omumistration has landed it in in the first place.
Nothing new there, and he may even be right.
Posted by: JTW at August 17, 2011 06:06 AM (oU0J/)
"I just can’t imagine anyone dumb enough to think you could keep this a secret."
Patrick Richardson, one of my partners at Pajamas Media working on the Gunwalker scandal, has an excellent interview posted with Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC). The Congressman seems to think... well, why don't you just go read the article directly, and see for yourself.
At this point, I don't think it a bold move at all to predict that the crimes committed by the government under the color of law in Gunwalker, and the ensuing (and on-going) coverup) will take down the Obama Administration from the inside in coming months. Months, not years.
More whistleblowers are coming forward out of enlightened self-interest ( the secure, encrypted email account gunwalkertips@hushmail.comexists for this very reason) and out of patriotism to share what they know of the operation, and it seems very likely that Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and the White House are neck-deep in either the original crime, and/or the cover-up.
With a few notable exceptions, the national media is avoiding covering this story as much as possible, but with more Congresspersons and Senators speaking out, and the exposure of other possible gun-walking operations approaching critical mass, even the most recalcitrant media outlets can't avoid covering the story forever.
Elements of the Obama Administration participated in a scheme that ensured the arming of the violent Sinaloa drug cartel with 2,020 firearms, and as a result, hundreds of Mexican nationals and at least three U.S. federal agents were shot, two fatally.
They are accessories to murder, and they will be held to account for their felonies.
1
You will never lose money betting on finding someone dumb enough.
I don't think it a bold move at all to predict that the crimes committed by the government under the color of law in Gunwalker, ...
I don't know that it matters much, but I think this charcterization is misleading. "Government" cannot commit crimes. The people in government make choices to do forbidden things or fail to do required things. They are then personally responsible under the law. To say that the government broke the law is to provide a shield of anonymity to the actual criminals. More correctly, one should say that agents and officials of the government broke laws.
Posted by: Professor Hale at August 15, 2011 11:39 AM (PDTch)
Bill Scott, Erik Scott's father, is an accomplished man. A former test pilot, Scott is an accomplished writer with well-respected books to his credit, primarily in the aerospace field, and a sought-after consultant. He has appeared on a number of History Channel specials.
In response to Eriks' death, Mr. Scott has been writing a serialized web novel called The Permit. While clearly fiction, those with knowledge of the Scott case will detect fascinating similarities to reality and perhaps even clues to reality not fully in the public domain.
The Permit can be accessed here. It's well done, interesting reading and would surely be of interest to those who have been following the Scott case. However, the book stands on its own for those who have not.
Mr. Scott's website is here, and the website he has established as a memorial to Erik Scott is here.
1
On Chapter 5 of "The Permit". All I can say is WOW, great story. The only thing that would make it better is if it had never been written. I cannot imagine a Father writing about his son's death in such detail. I hope he is finding some comfort in writing about, and exposing, the corrupt LV Police.
Posted by: carol at August 15, 2011 09:53 PM (eC04Q)
The Erik Scott Case, Update 13.2 Stalling and Consequences
For some time, the updates in the Scott case have dealt with issues not consistently directly related to the outcome of that case. I've focused on issues such as attempts by the Metro Police Protective Association (union) to do away with the newly minted inquest rules, and bizarre cases of Metro officer misbehavior and brutality that tend to illustrate the incompetent and corrupt culture of Metro from the lowest officer on the street to the Sheriff, Doug Gillespie.
This update will deal with two primary issues: The continuing case of Officer Derek Colling who beat and falsely arrested Mitchell Crooks for filming what was apparently completely proper police behavior, and the continuing efforts of the PPA to shelter Metro officers from having to fully account for their actions when they kill citizens.
However, on Wednesday, August 17,2011 I will publish Update 14, which is quite a lengthy analysis of Metro's actual interviews of the officers that shot Erik Scott. While long, it is very much worth your time. Until I was able to obtain copies of Metro's official reports and related documents in the Scott case, my only sources of information were the testimony of officers at the inquest, media accounts, and information gathered from willing sources in informed positions. What the metro reports reveal is very much in line with my earlier analysis, but is even more disturbing. Metro's culture and behavior is bizarre and unprofessional beyond anything I had previously imagined. Don't miss Update 14.
Before I begin, here are the links to previous updates and other sources quoted in this update:
(1) Go here for a Las Vegas Review-Journal story about a sort of half-disposition in the Colling case.
(2) Go here for a Review-Journal story on the continuing obstruction of the new inquest process by the PPA.
(3) Go here for a Las Vegas Sun article on the battle over the inquest process.
(4) Go here to Update 10.2 where I first addressed the issue of Off. Colling.
(5) Go here to Update 11.2 for a follow up on that case.
(6) Go here to Update 10.3 where I began addressing the attempts by the PPA or interfere with the inquest process.
(7) Go here to Update 12.2 for continuing information on that issue.
( Go here to Pajamas Media where I published an article on the law relating to citizens photographing police officers. The Colling case is mentioned in that article.
(9) Go here for a Review-Journal article on the potential resumption of inquests.
NOTE: Every article relating to the Scott case is available in our dedicated archive. Go to the right hand side of the CY home page. It's under "Archives by Category": "Erik Scott Case".
1
With regard to the Crooks case, five months is not inordinate or unusual length of time for a serious disiplinary case, especially a case where dismissal is likely. On agency side, they want to get it correct, so that disiplinary action, when reviewed by the courts as such are, is upheld. Both the officer and most probably the PPA will be fighting this case to the bitter end. I might point out that the BART Police Department lost at least one of the disiplinary actions in the Oscar Grant shooting. BART PD leapt to conclusions about law and facts, and was shot down by an appointed mediator.
I don't think that any major law enforcement agency would act quickly in any high profile case. The more high profile, the slower they act, especially in a State or agency where employees have legal rights of appeals.
Far too many people comment on law enforcement disiplinary proceedures when their knowledge is based on a viewing of LA Confidential, where officers could be given serious disipline or termination at the discretion of the Police Chief.
Well, you can't do that now, except in the small number of agencies where law or employment contracts limit appeal rights.
Check out this story of the Oakland PD who fired an officer but was forced to hire him back:
Better to get it correct, that do it wrong and have to walk it back.
Posted by: Federale at August 15, 2011 01:12 PM (ceoOP)
2
William Scott's letter. He knows nothing of employment law or the Constitution.
First, no person can be forced to testify against himself, including at a Grand Jury or Coroner's Inquest.
In fact, no officer has refused a GJ subpeona, so Scott's wild claims are not on point.
Second, a judge is reviewing the officer's challenge to the clear violations of the 5th Amendment. The county should not and no attorney would advise them to take action before judicial review is finished.
Third, Clark County cannot just declare it no longer recognizes the LVPPA. The LVPPA is the lawful representative of bargaining unit members. They have a contract. They can legally advise their members not to cooperate with a violation of their 5th Amendment rights.
Fourth, RR fired federal employees for illegally striking, not for acting to preserve their 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination.
The real solution is to return to the previous method of inquests. There, the elected District Attorney questions officers as his want before the Coroner. If you don't like the DA's questions, vote against him or her. That is the solution. You can also elect a new sheriff who will change policy.
It should also be pointed out again, that if the DA wants to get more anwers, then he can put the officers before a GJ. But, for those who know about the GJ process, you cannot force a suspect or someone who will incriminate themselves. Those persons have to come voluntarily.
But perhaps the new policy should be an investigation before the Coroner's Inquest.
In federal cases, the FBI or appropritate Office of Inspector General or other internal affairs unit investigates a federal officer or agent's shooting. Then the case is presented to the US Attorney's Office. Perhaps that proceedure should be adopted. The Sheriff's IA component, or perhaps a State investigative agency, investigates the shooting and presents evidence of criminal activity to the prosecuting authority.
A coroner's inquest is an antiquated proceedure and clearly not working.
In a criminal investigation, employees can get their appropriate Garrity or Kalkines warnings, and then give appropriate statements, either voluntarily or compelled. In such a case one would start with the witnesses and build up to the involved officers, eventually progressing through those officers with lesser possible culpability to those with greater possible culpability, but without the threat of coerced self incrimination.
But then is that compatable with the political agenda of certain parties of this controversy. Especially those with pecuniary interests?
Posted by: Federale at August 15, 2011 01:31 PM (ceoOP)
Metro is indeed slow in handing out discipline by any standard, and I suspect you know my background well enough to know that your "LA Confidential" straw man is just that.
In the case of Officer Colling or any similar officer, the process in any normal, professional agency, would be much faster. I'll illustrate, using an extraordinarily long time frame.
Upon starting an investigation, all that would be necessary would be to read all the related reports, examine evidence, interview all the witnesses, including the victim Crooks and other officers present. We'll give the police—supervisors, internal affairs, detectives, etc.—three weeks to do that and to produce their report which will simply state the facts, and whether those facts indicate that the officer—Colling—violated policy and/or the law. The report is forwarded to Colling's division commander. In reality, this could easily be done within a week.
The Division Commander discusses the case with other commanders, reviews department precedent to ensure that the discipline he is contemplating is in line with similar infractions in the past. In an agency the size of metro, there is a very great deal of precedent so there is no unnecessary dithering and hand wringing. The relevant issues are well known. The DC may or may not confer with the agency's legal advisors. Let's give them three weeks to chat and write their report, which is essentially a final recommendation to the Sheriff on the discipline to be imposed. Again, this could easily be done within a week.
The Sheriff has the choice of overturning, modifying or signing off on the recommendation. Let's say he takes a full month to make his decision. Two and a half months have passed since the investigation began. What possible reason could there be for taking longer? This could easily be done in a single day.
The reality is that regardless of unions or other factors, issues of disciplinary appeal and litigation are well known to competent police executives and they need not reinvent the wheel every time they contemplate firing someone. Any competent police administrator can attest that in a case as obvious as that of Colling, it should not take anywhere near the many months that have passed to deal with discipline, for the reasons outlined in the Update and expanded upon here.
Regarding your comments about Mr. Scott's letter to the Clark County Commission and your more indirect references to the Update, you are engaging again in erecting straw men and also citing facts not in evidence, putting words and inferences into the mouths of others that they did not make. This is fundamentally dishonest.
I have never argued, nor has Mr. Scott, that anyone can be compelled to testify against himself. Neither Mr. Scott nor I have argued that anyone has refused a subpoena of any kind, but merely have reported on the PPA's threats to disobey subpoenas and analyzed the consequence of such disobedience should it come to pass.
No judge will be reviewing "clear violations of the 5th Amendment." No such violations have occurred, nor would the new Inquest procedures require them despite the PPA smokescreen. If they go ahead, all that will occur is that officers will be subpoenaed to appear at inquests. As I have repeatedly written, they then have the option of testifying fully and truthfully, committing perjury, or taking the 5th. Anyone, civilian or officer, may invoke the 5th Amendment, and I have made this quite clear, over and over in the updates relating to this situation.
There are, in fact, several ways under state and federal laws that unions may be decertified. Unionism is not, contrary to what unions would like us to believe, forever. The PPA is hiding behind the 5th Amendment, but no one, not Clark County, and certainly not Mr. Scott or I have suggested that officers be compelled to testify, only that they must honor lawful subpoenas. They must show up as ordered. Their employer and the courts can indeed punish them for failing to do their duties if they refuse a lawful subpoena. There is nothing unusual in this at all and police officers across American understand it.
Because there has been and will be no violations of anyone's 5th Amendment rights, the PPA is behaving irresponsibly, perhaps even illegally, in counseling officers to refuse to do their duties and to refuse to cooperate with their own agencies and in counseling officers to refuse to do their duties by refusing to honor subpoenas. That is the issue in this case. The PPA knows it and is trying to avoid having officers refuse to do their duties because they know that there is no possible moral or legal justification for it.
Your statement that no one may be compelled to testify against himself before a grand jury is true but framed in a misleading way. If officers involved in a shooting have acted lawfully, how can they claim suspect status and refuse to appear before a grand jury? They can't hold both positions. Either they are blameless and therefore willing to testify fully and truthfully to their actions in any hearing, or they are culpable and have the option of invoking the 5th, in a grand jury, inquest or elsewhere. Unless they wish to self-identify as suspects, giving up the presumption that they acted legally and honorably in doing their jobs, they have no choice but to honor subpoenas. It is refusing to cooperate and honor subpoenas that the PPA seeks to delay and avoid.
A large part of Metro's problem is a debilitating lack of public trust. Metro investigates itself in every respect and the public rightfully believes that the DA and inquests in the past have been nothing more than cynical rubber stamps for Metro's malfeasance. Surely you recognize this? Many agencies call in outside investigators, including state police or even federal agencies in officer involved shootings to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Metro could institute this policy tomorrow, yet they do not. You are right that the old inquests were clearly not working. That is why Clark County wants new rules, and it is within the power of the elected representatives of the people of Clark County to establish such rules.
There is no threat of "coerced self incrimination," nor will there be such a threat, but all police officers are expected to do their duty, a duty that includes routinely testifying about their official actions in court as often as required. If they take the 5th, they may not be punished for that invocation of their rights (in a criminal setting), and no one is suggesting that they should be. As I pointed out, an officer taking the Fifth will surely be seen as lacking in the integrity necessary to serve as a police officer by the public and other officers. He may not be disciplined for doing it, but there are, indeed, consequences.
As to "pecuniary interests," and political agendas, seeking justice is hardly a political pursuit of the kind you imply, and I have no doubt that the Scott family, and the many families of Metro victims, would much rather have their loved ones back than any amount of money. However, sufficiently large judgments may have the effect of saving the lives of others in the future.
Posted by: Mike Mc at August 15, 2011 11:47 PM (7BLuT)
4
Once again Mike, you did a fabulous job. I get excited each time I see an update.
I spent so many years in Vegas watching the LEO get away with so much...so very much. It's given me so much hope that honorable officers such as yourself can step forward and make a difference.
I know you can't possibly realize this, but you have truly given honor to law enforcement...after years of me simply accepting that all officers must be corrupt (because of their silence).
Since I left Vegas a few years ago added to reading your blog, I am once again approaching officers to thank them for their service. And thank you for yours!
Posted by: Reason111 at August 16, 2011 06:52 AM (mAJ4p)
5
Anyone, even a police officer, can take the 5th. In fact, federal prosecutors are prohibited from attempting to place witnesses in the GJ who have possible culpability without a signed agreement. You might not like it, but police officers have 5th Amendment rights. Alot here think that they surrender their 5th Amendement rights once they join up. That is not true. You might wish it not, you might disagree with the reasoning of the Supreme Court when they made that decision, but you have to face facts. A police officer may be suspected of culpability, but he still has rights.
It is clear that you are trying to make you hostility to the LVMPD and the LVPPA square fit into a round Constitutional hole.
I suspect if this were the case of an army officer shooting a gun next to the head of an Iraqi terrorist in order to get that terrorist to talk, you would be singing another tune.
Posted by: Federale at August 16, 2011 11:12 AM (ceoOP)
OK, this will be the last response to you on this particular post. I have to wonder if you are incapable of reading and understanding what I have written and specifically clarified or whether you are purposely ignoring it.
I have never so much as implied that police officers lack 5th Amendment protections, in fact, I wrote that they unquestionably do in the very comment to which you are responding. I respect all Constitutional protections for every citizen. Therefore, there is no argument over the Fifth Amendment other than the argument you seem determined to manufacture out of whole cloth. The true issue discussed in this Update is police officers, through their union representatives, trying to avoid doing their duty. There is no Constitutional protection that allows this. In effect, Metro officers are saying: "Sure, I'll work the streets and shoot people, but I won't testify about how or why I shot them." That, and that alone is the issue; the 5th Amendment is not involved except that at some point in the future Metro officers may invoke it to avoid testifying about their actions. No one will prevent them from doing that. The courts and Metro will not punish them for doing that. However, the public and other officers are free to draw whatever conclusions they wish. I can only hope that this is sufficiently clear that you no longer try to suggest that the Fifth Amendment, or my fictional opposition to its invocation by Metro officers, is in any way the topic of discussion.
Any "hostility: I might have toward the LVMPD and LVPPA stems from the fact that their conduct exceeds the boundaries of professional and honorable police and labor practice. I have the same "hostility" toward any police agency, any police officer, or any police union that breaks the law, abuses citizens, abuses their authority, lies, misleads the pubic and encourages or defends others that do the same. Every citizen should rightfully hold such hostility.
And in your last assertion, you are, in a very general sense, correct, however what you imply has absolutely no relation to what is occurring in Las Vegas. The Constitution does not provide protection to illegal enemy combatants engaged in waging war against Americans, nor does any international agreement to which the United States is a party.
Posted by: Mike Mc at August 16, 2011 03:46 PM (7BLuT)
7
Yes, that is exactly what you are saying when you claim that a police officer can be forced to testify or make a statement regarding his culpability. You need to familiarize yourself with the Constitutional precedent decisions. Do you know anything about Garrity or Kalkines warnings that are required in such employee cases? Clearly not.
A police officer who is a mere witness maybe compeled to testify or write a report, but an involved party may not be absent specific advice and warnings.
And, yes, a union may advise its membership on their legal options. And, no, the LVPPA never advised its members to refuse a subpoena, GJ or otherwise. It did take the stand that said officers have rights under the 5th Amendment. PATCO was dissolved because it organized an illegal strike. You can't dissovle a union or bargaining unit without significant evidence of criminal or other misconduct. Legal advice is not one of those.
There is the fundamental issue. You claim that you understand their 5th Amendment rights but in reality you don't.
I also note that you did not address the substance of my recommendation, that police shooting investigations be executed by a third party law enforcement agency. Your little jihad against the LVMPD and LVPPA is clearly your motive, not rational discourse on the rights of bargaining unit employees, other employees, and competant investigations of police shootings.
If the LVMPD has such a poor reputation in Clark County because of police shootings, then why haven't the voters run the DA and Sheriff out of town on a rail by electing more responsive candidates? Talk about facts not in evidence. It is clear that the public has consented to the policies you decry.
And therein lies the problem, you got an agenda, crucifying some poor Joe from LVMPD because you think that some shootings were unjustified.
But it all goes to the facts of each incident, and I remind you that your ally from Shotgun News and the LV Review-Journal, Vin Suprynowicz, dropped Erik Scott like a hot potato. He saw the truth, Scott was a deranged junkie whose bad decisions got himself killed. He is no different from the smack addict who kills himself with an overdose or a drunk driver who wraps himself around a tree.
But, hey, thanks for letting me know you will not respond to this.
Posted by: Federale at August 18, 2011 12:26 PM (ceoOP)
I've been following convicted felon Lee Booth from the perspective of his seemingly illegal involvement with three firearms companies, the revelation of his status as criminal informant for the government that possibly kept him out of jail for his apparent gun crimes, and his recent arrest for assault with a deadly weapon.
What I haven't delved into to any great degree is the lawsuit against Booth regarding the demise of Pace Airlines (formerly Hooters Air), and missing equipment and parts related to the airline that some have speculated Booth has his hands on, all quite illegally.
It now seems something seems to be stirring on the Pace front, as Booth's property is about to be searched:
A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge overseeing the case of Pace Airlines Inc. has ordered a hearing for 2 p.m. Wednesday to discuss the request by the bankruptcy trustee to review company property held by Lee Booth. The hearing is set for the Bankruptcy Court at 226 S. Liberty St. in Winston-Salem.
Edwin Allman III requested the expedited hearing to gain access to any facilities and warehouses owned by Booth or his company, Luft Spares Inc. Allman said he wants to inspect, photograph and inventory the contents. Allman has listed Booth as a co-owner of the defunct company along with William Rodgers Sr.
Booth said Friday that he has consented to the request and is arranging an inspection of his facilities next week.
Presumably, the Pace attorneys have serial numbers for the missing Pace Airline assets, which Booth has apparently denied having. If any of these assets turn up, or if the trustees turn up any evidence that proves he was in possession of these missing assets and made a profit on them, then I suspect he'll be in deep trouble.
Who knows? Maybe they'll even find some guns.
A reader asked me why I have such a low opinion of Rep. Ron Paul and his fan base. I gave him a rather lengthy answer, but my opposition to the candidate himself is summed up well enough in this reference from Rep. Allen West, who has a much better grasp of the way the real world works.
Paul's "hand's off" philosophy if implemented after World War II, would have gleefully let Russia pile nuclear missile batteries in Cuba, and expand in Central and South America unopposed. It would have let the Iron Curtain extend fully over Western Europe, Africa, and the Korean peninsula. It would have certainly led to our decline as a world power, and quite possibly would have plunged free populations into tyranny, or even a third World War.
Simply put, Paul's beliefs, if implemented as policy, would constitute a clear danger to this nation's very existence.
My second objection to Paul is the cult-like followers he has attracted. That are every bit as zealous as the Obamites, and their constant screaming and yelling at events is off-putting (to put it mildly). I've seen enough of cult-leaders with destructive policy agendas. No more.
I'd contemplate sitting at home if it came down to Paul versus Obama. Sadly, I suspect more Americans would simply vote for Obama again in a landslide, assuring our fiscal collapse.
1
I noted your objections to Paul, I am certain that you have others but chose his foreign policy. There would have been Russian missles in various places after WWII, yet in reality, those missles were being put in place because we initiated the missle race by do the same in Europe and Turkey. For that matter, who won the cold war? Currently we have a communist as president and we are moving daily to become the reincarnation of the Soviet Union. So I would have to say that the Russians won in the long run.
I know you are very intelligent, but so are many of the followers of Paul. Most that I have seen posting are professionals. I know most of the doctors that I associate with are libertarians. In fact, many endorse the policy of Paul of getting the government out of medical care and returning our rights to obtain medical care as we desire. In short, you go to Walgreen's and buy the drugs you desire without prescription as well as eliminating the "war on drugs". No other politician is doing this, in fact all the Republican front runners desire to push their morality down our throats like the socialist are doing.
Paul is the only real change on the agenda.
Posted by: David Caskey at August 14, 2011 01:52 PM (l/+uh)
2
Well, I hope you reconsider staying home if it is Paul/Obama. Paul would be so busy the first 4 years undoing Obama's mess that he won't have enough time to make a large enough one of his own to worry about. Frankly, he might be the perfect foil, he will push to undo all the intrusive, 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment violations, Patriot Act, TSA crap, he can clean the slate. Paul isn't my first choice, but I will never again stay home and give my vote to the opposition. In 2012 we all must vote ANYONE BUT OBAMA or our country is done for. I don't think we are going to have a perfect candidate, but that is better than the perfectly wrong one we have now.
Posted by: ChrisInKentucky at August 14, 2011 02:40 PM (//jPH)
3
Paulbots are great at fudging the polls. He has forever done well in straw polls, but come primary time he is forever in single digits for percentage of the vote.
It seems no matter how stupid the idea, or outright effin' nutzo the statement, his followers will simply ignore it. . . or worse. . . think it is a grand idea.
In some ways he would be as bad as 0bama is.
Posted by: JP at August 14, 2011 05:45 PM (Tae/a)
4
JP,
Can you name several nutty ideas. I would like to know.
Posted by: David Caskey at August 14, 2011 06:24 PM (l/+uh)
5
Rob,
Great post. Linked at Libertarian Republican - not my site, but much better known. Blogmeister Dondero also posts for Breitbart.
Also - I'm working to have LR link your coverage of Fast & Spurious. Great work and many thanks.
Ran
PS, check-out the new Boberg reverse-feed 9mm. Cheers.
Posted by: Ran at August 14, 2011 07:47 PM (xSeWe)
6
As someone was a literally a card carrying libertarian and still considers himself one (the party left the philosophy, not me), I don't think Ron Paul is cut out for the White House. Yes, I support all of his domestic policies -- but the place to implement those is in Congress. The President's most vital role is Commander in Chief, and I have no confidence in Dr. Paul in that role.
Posted by: Phelps at August 14, 2011 09:50 PM (ACp4b)
7
Paul is bat shit crazy and everyone who follows him must hang upside down to sleep.
Posted by: Scrapiron at August 14, 2011 10:20 PM (cGLRg)
8
RP is dead on target with regard to the Federal Reserve and understanding what makes for a sound economy (the federal government must be put back in the box of powers derived from the Constitution). He is, IMO, right about the futility of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya BUT for the wrong reasons. He is right that we can not afford to be the protectors of the EU or the policeman of the world. He is wrong about illegal immigration and he fails to understand that we have to stay engaged militarily and diplomatically with the world at large and again, for the wrong reasons.
What I admire about RP is that he is consistent. Given a choice between Obama and my cats as president I vote my cats. I acknowledge RP is a bit more prepared to be president that my cats. RP is not my candidate of choice. Gary Johnson comes first, followed by Cain and then Palin. But Obama vs Paul? Paul gets my vote without hesitation.
Posted by: Parker at August 14, 2011 11:07 PM (YD4vH)
9
"What I admire about RP is that he is consistent."
Well, yeah. But Obama is consistent too. Consistency is a virtue only in so far as it is associated with a correct rather than an erroneous belief.
Paul has expressed contempt for the American military on several occasions, the latest of which was the pre-straw poll debate where he characterized one of America's problems as its militarism. He is also an isolationist loon who would have been content to go to war against Hitler only after Nazi Germany attempted to invade America.
He is also consistently anti-Israel. I am not sure that he is anti-Semitic, but he has consistently allowed anti-Semites to tie themselves to him so long as they are right on economic issues.
Posted by: Mark L at August 15, 2011 09:22 AM (MFXSd)
10
mark,
Let me help you with something, I don't mean to be hatefull, but go back and read the history of WWII with a critical eye. I have corresponded with Paul in the past and know that he has accomplished this task. When you read the history from a different aspect, you will understand that the US was little different from the Germans or the Japanese. As horrible as these people where, we were just about as bad. The best way of taking on Germany would have been to allow the Russians and Germans to have it out. Supply both sides. Then eliminate the winner. The British were a non-factor as they were defeated and didn't know it. Now I am not defending either side and don't condone the actions of either side. But there are more than one story.
Posted by: david7134 at August 15, 2011 10:25 AM (l/+uh)
11
"When you read the history from a different aspect, you will understand that the US was little different from the Germans or the Japanese. As horrible as these people where, we were just about as bad."
Put down the bong and step away from fantasy back into reality. Anyone that can seriously say that is delusional. To be charitable.
Remind me: how many death camps did the United States run? How many POWs did we use for medical experiments? How many did we use to test chemical and biological weapons? Remind me how much territory we annexed after our victories.
We did bad things during that war, but to claim there is little difference between the US to Germany or Japan is idiotic. No, it is not idiotic -- it is nuts.
Posted by: Mark L at August 15, 2011 01:43 PM (MFXSd)
12
Ok, so various politicians keep blathering Iran with nukes is "unacceptable". Just what do you suggest doing about it? Sanctions have proven to be useless, DC hasn't got the guts to nuke them, so there is nothing going to be done about it & it is really annoying to hear the "unacceptable" crap. At least Ron Paul (& yes he is a nut) acknowledges we arent going to do anything.
Posted by: Max at August 17, 2011 12:33 PM (fuq3c)
As regular readers know, I am singularly unimpressed with the meddling of government in our automotive affairs. Well, yes, I'm unimpressed with their meddling in any of our affairs, but let's talk cars for a minute. The CAFE average (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) is a lovely governmental invention that greatly increases the cost of new cars while greatly diminishing utility and safety. Until the age of Obama, changes in the CAFE mandate tended to be incremental and at least slightly rational. That has changed, and by 2050, the CAFE number is 54.5 MPG across every manufacturer's fleet. Thank you Mr. Obama!
There are essentially three ways to do that: (1) amazing technological breakthroughs the laws of physics in real world as opposed to Obama world may very well not allow; (2) Greatly reducing vehicle weight; (3) greatly enhancing aerodynamics to the point that we're driving rifle bullets on very few, very skinny, very high inflation tires.
In any case, the good folks at Pajamas Media have published my latest scribbling on CAFE (here). Stop by and be sure to also check out Bob's latest article on Gunwalker--it will not make you a happy camper. Come to think of it, neither will my article. Bummer.
We occasionally get spammed with advertisements and this sort of nonsense and do our best to remove it as soon as we see it. Because the web vermin doing this sort of thing simply change their URLS constantly, it's difficult to block them, but we try to keep up as much as possible. I've deleted the comment, but it may take a little while for the server to catch up.
Thanks!
Posted by: Mike Mc at August 14, 2011 03:31 PM (7BLuT)
3
There's a third way -- have the DOT issue a "waiver" to the politically connected car manufacturers, like they did with Obamacare and the EPA regs.
Posted by: Phelps at August 14, 2011 09:51 PM (ACp4b)
4
Mike,
Thanks for explaining all that gibberish. I had no idea what it was about & thought someone was being extremely rude! From now on I will know to ignore it!
Carol
Posted by: carol at August 14, 2011 10:18 PM (eC04Q)
In the Iowa Straw Poll, Bachmann edged out the insane clown posse, some dude from Minnesota came in a distant third, and the folks who are most likely to end up with the nomination weren't even on the ballot.
The Literature Corner for August 13, 2011: The Bixby Letter
The Literature Corner for August 13, 2011: The Bixby Letter
Continuing with the theme established in The Literature Corner for last week, I present another of the essential letters of America. As I wrote last week, there are some writings, some documents that should be well known by every American, yet are too often ignored in favor of "celebrating diversity" and multi-cultural consciousness raising. The result, all too often, is Americans graduating from high school and even college with no idea of the depth and meaning of our foundational documents, and of the stature and character of those who wrote them. Substituted instead are the self-referential writings of people of far, far less importance and import than the author of the simple letter that is today's offering.
The Bixby Letter was written by Abraham Lincoln in 1864, and wide-spread interest in it was rekindled by its reading in the movie Saving Private Ryan. The original is lost, but in 2008, a Texas museum found what may be an authentic government copy of the letter. Go here for a story on that document and for history on the original.
In these simple, heartfelt lines, written in a time when correspondence was handwritten, providing ample time for reflection, it is both touching in its genuine sympathy and thrilling in what it reveals about its author. It is impossible to read this letter without understanding that you are reading the thoughts, hopes, and sorrows of a truly great man, one of the indispensable men that seems to appear in America's darkest hours, when they are needed most.
If you've never read the letter, now you have the chance to be sure that your children read it, and understand the immeasurable sacrifices made by so many for the idea of America. There are times when a speech or letter is simply perfect for the occasion. It is not possible to do better. This is such a letter. God grant that we may again find such a leader.
Posted by: NavyOne at August 12, 2011 10:02 PM (BlK8v)
2
I'm sorry she lost all 5 sons, but that war should never have been and all Lincoln did was begin the wholesale shredding of the Constitution.
Secession, as Jefferson pointed out, is indeed an option.
Read Charles Adams' _The Course of Human Events_ for a better perspective on Lincoln.
Posted by: capt45 at August 13, 2011 10:58 AM (ibVuG)
3
Of course, since Jefferson was not involved with the drafting of the Constitution his opinion on the matter is just that, an opinion. Where as the actual drafters of the Constitution, highly educated and intelligent men all, would have included a succession provision in the document had it been their desire to do so. The very fact that they chose not to includes such a provision shows that their intent was not to create a union where membership was considered temporary.
Had Lincoln not acted as he had, instead of one large nation we would have disintergrated into several smaller nations with constantly shifting friends and foes. In that case, we would have made the political squables of Europe in the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries pale by comparision and it is entirely possible that this continent would then have had the ravages of the world wars played out here rather than in Eurpoe and Asia.
But hey, maybe some of these Loncoln haters think that the contiuation of slavery would have been worth it.
Posted by: Thresherman at August 13, 2011 08:47 PM (f8An+)
4
"The Bixby Letter" represents the best of human nature; devotion to a just cause and compassion. Both of those very worthy traits remain today but are seldom seen or celebrated. I am reminded of our young military men and women who are far from home, many living without electricity or running water, and in heat that is unimaginable. As the Bixby men fought for a cause they believed in, so too, do our military today. I am reminded of a young Marine who took a sniper bullet while trying to save an 11 year old boy in Iraq. Compassion. Both devotion and compassion are with us today. Sadly they are often overlooked in our present day political climate.
Thank you for posting this letter. It reminded me that what was true in 1864 is also true today.
Posted by: carol at August 14, 2011 11:12 AM (eC04Q)
It is Going to Get Bad. It is Going to Get Bloody . The Question is How Bad, and How Bloody.
Over at Hot Air Jazz Shaw points to a new Rasmussen poll that indicates roughly half of Americans expect violence when it comes time to pay the piper.
Nearly one-out-of-two Americans (48%) think that cuts in government spending are at least somewhat likely to lead to violence in the United States, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But that includes just 13% who feel it’s Very Likely.
A bit less than have thinks that cuts will not lead to violence. These would be you victims.
I stopped by one of my local gun shops Wednesday night to drop off a part I had that belonged to the owner, and the gentleman behind the counter (who knows me as a gun blogger) took just a few minutes to tell me about the significant increase in calls about firearms just this week.
The calls were in response to the S&P downgrade, the rioting in Great Britain, and the mob racial violence in the Midwest and Northeast in recent weeks. It can happen here, and people are starting to say so.
A majority of calls were from young families that had not owned guns before, but who were now concluding that they need firearms to protect themselves.
Interestingly enough, the majority of callers seemed to be requesting information about AR-15 pattern rifles, similar to what our military carries but without the option of automatic fire. Most of these callers were hit by the shock shock of the cost of an AR ($750-$1500 and up) and didn't have the money to purchase them, and so turned their attention to pistols and shotguns.
People are scared, and the clerk lamented that a lot of people now in the market aren't going to get the training they should, and are going to end up shooting people they don't legally have a right to shoot, and a lot of these people are going to end up in jail.
We're going to have to severely cut social programs. As much as liberals are burying their heads in the sand (or other warm, dark places) to avoid dealing with that fact, we simply have to cut spending, and that is going to mean significant entitlement reform. Combine that with an entitlement mindset and a consumer culture with eroding moral guidance, and you have the recipe for the kind of violence you saw in the United Kingdom, and the very distinct probability that it will happen here to some extent.
The big question no one can answer is that we don't know how widespread or deep the rioting and violence with occur.
Will it be mindless, but weapon-free looting and racial attacks like we've seen in recent weeks that just sent a few people to the hospital, or are we going to see cities burn again?
Will the violence be confined to small isolated incidents quickly stomped out by effective policing, or will President Empty Suit dither as America burns?
It is likely to get bad. How bad, we simply don't know.
1
Nation with a Mossberg 550 in every living room sounds like a nice place to live.
Posted by: Phelps at August 12, 2011 05:33 PM (ACp4b)
2
my vote is on dither and golf. he wants change. what people never got was change is not allways benevolent. and since my opinion is he has a molevolent side to him he will easily allow chaos to reign if he thinks america has rejected him, read punishment for not wanting the "one"
Posted by: rumcrook at August 12, 2011 06:49 PM (60WiD)
3
The best weapon in the world is a piece of junk unless you're ready to use it.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg at August 12, 2011 07:24 PM (kN/gH)
4
Everyman for himself, government against all. That is what we will reap. Personally, I want to engage the jack booted thugs at a minimum of 200 yards, and would prefer 400 yards. My old eyes can still hit a milk jug at that distance. Shotgun range is messy and I don't appreciate blood, bone fragments, and brains on my t-shirt.
Posted by: Parker at August 12, 2011 11:46 PM (YD4vH)
5
My daughter just was asking what I thought about her purchasing a pistol for home defense (her state effectively denies concealed carry to anyone other than political supporters). She was concerned that if anything went wrong, she would be a single woman living alone. So she thought a pistol at home would be a good idea.
She has plenty of training. She and I have shot together for years. She took a pistol self-defense course in college. So I am not concerned about her getting in over her head.
But she chose now to decide this way.
Me, I have plenty of ammo and a surfeit of firearms on my rural 5 acres. I don't think the rioting will make it out here...to many of my neighbors are better armed than I am--at least enough to counter-balance the looney liberals salted into our community.
Posted by: iconoclast at August 13, 2011 12:36 AM (0L8vQ)
6
The Empty Suit Oblama will be inciting the coming violtnce and our overpaid unionized pc police will do nothing to stop mayhem in the streets. The racist marxist-in-chief hates the 80% us that are not libtard leftists and wants us eliminated to make way for his third world illegal immigrant hordes and delusional dreams of a Soviet Stalinist socialist hell.
Posted by: Old Observer at August 13, 2011 10:58 AM (QL6VB)
7
My friends know I'm into guns and most of the used to act all afraid, they're mostly good little lefties, but lately they've been asking me what kind of gun to get to protect themselves.
Posted by: Veeshir at August 13, 2011 12:52 PM (7cyKH)
8
Based on the London riots, I would invest in baseball bats.
It seems that Londoners have taken great affection to the American past-time, as Amazon sales of baseball bats has sky-rocketed since the start of the riots.
Posted by: Neo at August 13, 2011 10:17 PM (e8kgV)
9
Sorry, but I semi look forward to it. It would enable Darwinian cleansing of the entitlement class. Do I want violence? No. Am I prepared for violence should it come, and willing to inflict it? Yes.
Posted by: cmblake6 at August 14, 2011 04:04 PM (52/1L)
10
"will President Empty Suit dither as America burns?"
He will be throwing gasoline onto the fire.
Posted by: sofa at August 18, 2011 10:41 AM (2jilc)
Can an American news agency that knew that Operation Fast and Furious was "walking" thousands of firearms to Mexican drug cartels face criminal and civil charges for their role in covering up the program?
That is a question the Washington Post, its editors, reporters, and lawyers should be sweating, as evidence emerges that the newspaper may have been aware of the multi-agency "Gunwalker" program that led to the deaths of an estimated 150 Mexican police and soldiers or more, the shooting of three American federal agents, and countless casualties on both sides of the border.
Neil W. McCabe reveals the stunning allegations in Human Events with an article accusingly titled, The Washington Post has a Partner’s Share in Agent Terry's Death.
The story--which must be read in its entirety--reveals that Post reporters James V. Grimaldi and Sari Horwitz, research editor Alice Crites and staff writer William Booth worked extremely closely with the ATF in Houston, TX, over a period of months to write a series of articles called "The Hidden Life of Guns."
Grimaldi and Horwitz shared a byline on a key story in the series, As Mexico drug violence runs rampant, U.S. guns tied to crime south of border, which McCabe claims as evidence of the incestuous relationship that had developed between the journalists and the ATF:
This team worked for months with the ATF so closely that when the article was published the paper, it had prepared maps and charts based on ATF-provided statistics. Its online presentation included a video narrated by ATF Special Agent J. Dewey Webb, and a video of an interrogation of an illegal alien picked up in a weapons case in a private room with an ATF agent, apparently without the detainee knowing he was being recorded.
The statistics cited by the Post in the article, maps, and charts were apparently based upon gun trace data using Operation Fast and Furious statistics. McCabe argues that the relationship between ATF and the Post writers and editors was so close that the reporters must have known that the ATF and other federal law enforcement agencies were allowing straw purchasers to walk the weapons into Mexico and arm the cartels with weapons used to murder hundreds.
If that is indeed the case--and that is a big "if"--then the Post has crossed an major ethical line in what it decided to conceal to protect their assets, similar to what CNN did when it looked the other way as Saddam Hussein's thugs were raping and torturing Iraqi citizens.
* * *
The allegation of collusion between the Post and the ATF isn't the only reason the Houston ATF should be worried this week. Houston area gun shops supply a surprising number of guns showing up in central and southern Mexico, suggesting the possible existence of a Gunwalker program that is equal to or even dwarfs Arizona's Operation Fast and Furious.
Congressional investigators with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are focusing on the ATF's Houston office, one of the three additional areas where an operation like Operation Fast and Furious may have occurred, as reported in a previous Pajamas Media report.
Congressional investigators are researching an initiative that sounds very, very familiar.
...congressional leaders want to know if similar problems happened in Houston during an investigation done under the auspices of an ATF initiative called "Gunrunner." The operation targeted "straw buyers" in border states recruited to legally purchase handguns and high-powered rifles only to hand the weapons over to members of the drug cartels.
"The ATF agents encouraged them to go through with the sales," said Houston attorney Dick DeGuerin, who represents Carter's Country, the largest independent gun retailer in our region.
DeGuerin said starting in 2006, Houston ATF agents asked Carter's Country for help by alerting agents when a suspicious gun buyer tried to purchase multiple weapons. DeGuerin referred to this effort as a "stall and call."
"Stall the purchaser, call the ATF, let an ATF agent come out and watch the sale so they could follow it," DeGuerin said.
"Did the ATF always show up?" asked Local 2 Investigator Robert Arnold.
"No, they didn't," DeGuerin said.
If that sounds familiar, it should... Carter's Country is the exact same gun shop savaged by the Post reporting team in the article that drew McCabe’s attention at Human Events.
Carter's Country is now in a legal battle with the ATF, with the ATF attacking the gun store for supplying weapons to straw purchasers which found their way south to the cartels, and the gun store claiming that it was doing exactly what the ATF asked it to do.
DeGurein claims to have documentation that correlates their version of events, and ATF Houston has declined to talk.
Senator Charles Grassley sent a statement to KRPC in Houston that pulled no punches:
"Knowingly allowing guns to be purchased by straw buyers and then transferred to third parties is wrong no matter how you cut it. Whether it's one or 1,800, the ATF's actions in Houston and Phoenix were reckless and ill-advised. The Justice Department and the ATF need to come clean, accept responsibility, and provide honest, straightforward answers from here on out."
The multi-agency task force that took part in these and other suspected "walking" operations in Texas and Florida have a lot to answer for.
So does the Washington Post, which apparently not only knew about the program, but chose to cover it up with a hit piece by one of the reporters involved in the Houston reporting operation that had just returned to duty following a plagiarism scandal.
Neither the Holder Justice Department nor the Washington Post seem to care the least little bit about acting ethically or legally.
No wonder they work so well together.
1
Can an American news agency that knew that Operation Fast and Furious was "walking" thousands of firearms to Mexican drug cartels face criminal and civil charges for their role in covering up the program?
I am compelled to disagree with your premise here. You are implying that if the gunrunner- provided guns were not available that those particular criminals would have been unable to commit their crimes and the law enforcers of Mexico and Agent Terry would still be alive. That is like saying if Banana Republic went out of business, we would all run around naked.
The criminal gangs of Mexico had unrestricted access to firearms before Gunrunner and there is every reason to believe they would have continued to buy as much as they wanted from non-gunrunner sources as they needed.
The only thing Gun Runner did was implicate members of the Obama Administration in violations of US laws.
Since you should not make the claim that the gun sales were responsible for the crimes (murder), without regard to where the guns were bought, you should not then make a further claim that the news media colluded in the crime (murder) by covering up what they knew.
You may make the claim that they colluded in the illegal acts of government agents circumventing US laws.
Note that this is a similar argument that gun control advocates have tried to use against gun dealers and manufacturers claiming people who sell and make guns are responsible for the crimes commtted with those guns.
Posted by: Professor Hale at August 12, 2011 12:14 PM (m7EhJ)
2
You may make the claim that they colluded in the illegal acts of government agents circumventing US laws.
I thought that's what he did.
There's a reason I started calling them Minitrue in 2009. They're adjuncts of the gov't, telling the stories that will advance their chosen party.
Posted by: Veeshir at August 12, 2011 02:11 PM (7cyKH)
Don't Listen to the Government. If You do, You're Going to Be Labeled A Terrorist Threat.
Mike Vanderboegh pissed me off last night. No, it wasn't anything he did. He simply emailed a link to his story about how the paranoid Obama Justice Department has decided to label a significant part of the population as a terrorist threat for buying common disaster preparation items.
The FBI handout, entitled "Communities Against Terrorism: Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Military Surplus Stores" also instructs surplus store owners to:
"Require valid ID from all new customers.
Keep records of purchases.
Talk to customers, ask questions, and listen to and observe their responses.
Watch for people and actions that are out of place.
Make note of suspicious statements, people, and /or vehicles.
If something seems wrong, notify law enforcement authorities."
The handout also instructs surplus store owners to consider as "suspicious" anyone who "demands identity 'privacy'" or anyone who expresses "extreme religious statements" and those who "make suspicious comments regarding anti-US, [or] radical theology."
The list of items that the Feds consider possible indications of terrorist intent are common items set aside by disaster preparedness:
Weatherproofed ammunition or match containers Weatherized ammunition optimized for long-term storage to avoid corrosion is very common, as is the bulk purchase of ammunition in general. Matches work best when they aren't soggy. horrors!
Meals Ready to Eat (MREs) Without question, the single most common disaster preparation foodstuff, almost always bought by the case. Want to eat after a hurricane? You terrorist!
Night Vision Devices; night flashlights; gas masks Night vision gear and flashlights are essential for search and rescue for those disasters not conveniently scheduled during the daytime, and have the added benefit of not ruining the night vision of those using them, causing temporary blindness as bright normal lights can. Gas masks can filter out the deadly toxins in molds (which is why you saw construction crews using them after Katrina) and some work as well to filter out particulate smoke and deadly chemicals from fires.
High capacity magazines They are commodities, and your are supposed to have a minimum of five for each firearm for many shooting classes. A person with a half-dozen magazines ("high capacity" is a made-up term) or more for his or her weapon and steely nerve can face down crowds of thugs and looters like those that have set London ablaze.
Bi-pods or tri-pods for rifles Make up your minds! you don't want people to have magazines, because you don't want them shooting with any volume of fire. Now you're trying to tell me you want to take away the weapons stabilization platforms that enhance accuracy? Is the FBI trying to encourage innaccurate shooting?
The more I see from this Justice Department, the more it concerns me that they are devolving into armed enforcers (and occasionally covert criminals) for the Executive branch, and that they are creating opportunities to envision solid citizens as threats to their power.
Am I the only one who remembers Stalin using famine and starvation as a weapon against his people?
Posted by: Phelps at August 12, 2011 11:05 AM (ACp4b)
2
While they are at it, they should just go ahead and forbid owning anything made by Magpul, Surefire, and Underarmor.
An alternative explanation is that the BATF agents own stock in all those companies and releasing bullitens like this is one very effective way to boost sales.
Posted by: Professor Hale at August 12, 2011 11:55 AM (m7EhJ)
Was it last year Congress passed a law giving the feds authority to shut down shipments of food?
For safety, of course. I'm sure there's no nefarious intent.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at August 12, 2011 09:38 PM (H7itF)
4
Everyone should continue to hoard beans, rice, water, and bullets.
Posted by: Parker at August 13, 2011 12:00 AM (YD4vH)
5
I read the list and suddenly came to the realization that I am a terrorist. What do I do now? Should I turn myself in? Wait, I don't have a bipod as the army taught me how to make one with a sling that is superior to a fixed structure. That might let me off the hook.
Posted by: david7134 at August 13, 2011 11:45 AM (l/+uh)
6
I think this POTUS is against all private property ownership. Anyone who owns anything, or buys or owns anything without taking his mark, will be next on his hit list.
Posted by: laura at August 15, 2011 12:43 AM (M6ErA)
Go here to Pajamas Media where I published an article on the law relating to citizens photographing police officers. The Colling case is mentioned in that article.
(9) Go here for a Review-Journal article on the potential resumption of inquests.
NOTE: Every article relating to the Scott case is available in our dedicated archive. Go to the right hand side of the CY home page. It's under "Archives by Category": "Erik Scott Case".