The Cobs Have This Idea That You Will Write This Post For Us

Oh yes you will.
Lefties are orgasmic over this video. I had no idea my small business was such a public burden. Wow.
Good to know.

Have at it, darling Morons. I'll be checking out the comments and main-paging the awesome ones. I have a good feeling about this concept.

Above the video AWESOME comment:

267 Is she f*cking insane?

I gotta ask.

Its the taxes *I* pay as a small business owner, and as a private citizen, that funds the roads, the police, the army, and so on. I pay for this now. Right f*cking now.

And you don't think I built my goddamned business on my own? You don't think I am the only one who was willing to take a f*cking risk on my vision? You think that society as a whole contributed to my business growing and being successful?

So, in the deepest dark of the credit crunch, where was society with the capital to back the asset purchases I needed to fulfill orders when the banks wouldn't? The banks that are partially publicly owned, too big to fail, yet probably should?

What grew my business was the intense backbreaking labor I put into my business. The complex financial arrangements, and the risks *I* f*cking took. The danger to my families well being by literally risking every f*cking thing we had in order to pursue this, while this idiot and her fellow travelers were busy raping larger versions of businesses and denying their rightful owners their assets handing everything over to their buddies.

Lady, you have no business being in government. You have no business teaching. You have no f*cking clue what it takes to start, grow, run a business.

OMFG

Posted by: John Galt at September 22, 2011 12:12 PM (9NQ6I)

Yes, it is quite galling to work 6, sometimes 7 days a week, get F*CKED by the government six ways to Sunday in ways that employees never get to know about, and be told about all this wonderful 'help' we received.

14 The wealthy and productive have made the most use out of the tools society has provided for everyone ... and for that, they must be punished!

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at September 22, 2011 11:38 AM (PLvLS)

19 "Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."

"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."

-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

Posted by: Monty at September 22, 2011 11:39 AM (/0a60)

49 Actually, about 50% of the population didn't pay for any of that. The "rich" guys who run the businesses paid for it, you condescending elitist scrunt.

Posted by: Phelps at September 22, 2011 11:42 AM (gLoaG)

52 "You don't need to worry about marauding bands coming to your factory and stealing everything."

Obviously, you're not Gibson Guitars.

Posted by: arhooley at September 22, 2011 11:43 AM (YPgE/)

80 Hidden (but not really) in Warren's idea of the implied social contract is the assumption on their part that they are the ones who are going to set the terms of the relationship between the government (them) and its citizens (you). They truly believe we should all be grateful for what the government "gives" us, not stopping for a minute to realize that the wealth of government cannot exist without the work of its citizens.

The concept of individual liberty, of citizens as autonomous actors who have the power to establish what relationship we should have with our government confuses and enrages them. It's astounding, but welcome, to see a candidate express their beliefs in such stark terms. This is the American left.

Posted by: Slublog at September 22, 2011 11:46 AM (0nqdj)

153 Lizzy Borden Warren took a tax
and gave your wallet 40 whacks
When she saw what she had done
She gave your assets 41.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at September 22, 2011 11:56 AM (jiVmv)

235 The thrust of these comments is clear. (Leave aside the fact that the wars were in response to being attacked. (She's right about the drug benefit not being paid for, though.))
"Pay it forward" means, to people like her, "do as the government says." The end state of this philosophy is corporatism, in which only large corporations who can satisfy the government's requirements survive and flourish. The other name for corporatism is fascism. This is the end state of her philosophy, and she knows it and work toward it with the fervor of a zealot. That's what we're fighting against: the death of individual initiative and success and the rise of the all-encompassing corporatist state.

Posted by: joncelli at September 22, 2011 12:07 PM (RD7QR)

OK, that's enough. You get the gist.
This comments thread is the cat's tits. You guys are hilarious and well-informed.
It's no wonder Breitbart desires you. The covetous bitch. I'll cut him if he tries to take my Morons.
I'll do it. more...

Posted by: LauraW at 07:33 AM | Comments (656)
Post contains 959 words, total size 6 kb.

Another governmental shutdown looming? Republican Representatives rebelled against their leadership and killed a short-term spending measure.

The vote failed, 195-230, after Democrats pulled their support for the bill and Republican leaders were forced to scramble for enough votes entirely within their own ranks. Four dozen conservatives voted against the bill because it left spending levels for 2012 higher than the cap set in the House GOP budget.

I don't think Teh Bernank's "Operation Twist" announcement had quite the short-term effect he was hoping for. FT's Alphaville weighs in with this judgement: "Equities investors do. Not. Like." What is there to like? Teh Bernank basically just told savers to go fornicate themselves for an undetermined (but lengthy) period of time.

Spain may be the biggest threat to the Eurozone, not Greece. Though any of the PIIGS could fill that role, really. If any piece of the rickety contraption fails, the whole thing collapses.

Is unemployment really so bad, compared to previous recessions? Probably not so much...if you accept the Labor Bureau's numbers. I don't. The "official" numbers put the unemployment rate at around 9.1%, but since this number excludes those "not looking for work" (left the workforce entirely) and those who are underemployed or can only find short-term work, the real rate is probably closer to 13%, maybe as high as 15%. Our recovery is also terribly slow, which may mean that we face a chronically high unemployment rate -- which is to say that the unemployment rate may no longer be tied to the business cycle, but may in fact be structural.

USPS: "Help us, Obi Wan Kenobi! You're our only hope!"

There is evidence of the hand of Sauron in the Lightsquared imbroglio.

Median household incomes: dismal. Or...maybe not so much.

The plutocracy story forces us to confront another fallacy that is absolutely sacred to journalists: That there is a fixed group of people called “the rich” who are taking advantage of the rest of us.

The composition of the rich keeps changing too. Anyone worried about the income disparities in America is worried about people like Michael Oher, the NFL player and star of the book “The Blind Side” who, five years ago, was a college student without much income and is today paid millions to block for the Baltimore Ravens. Should we be worried about the huge disparity in income that has cropped up in only five years between Michael Oher and himself?

Solyndra and the perils of industrial policy. When short term political gain and "optics" drive the policy (not to mention the quasi-religious cult of "green" that pervades this Administration), a lousy outcome is almost guaranteed. This is also what comes of letting academics and community organizers conduct the nation's business policy -- few of them have any actual experience running a private-sector business at a profit. They have no idea how the private-sector economy works. As Raymond Stanz so memorably said to Peter Venkman: "You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect results."

Weekly jobless claims fall...a bit. Cynic that I am, I simply await the inevitable revision upwards.

In case you forgot, Rhode Island (member in good standing of the LOTB) is still on a rocket-sled ride to insolvency due to public-sector pension and healthcare costs.

Public-employee unions are ripping off taxpayers in Illinois, but you already knew that. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

UPDATE 1: I'm a space geek, and I firmly believe that letting NASA continue to drive our nation's efforts in space is a guarantee of DOOM, so here's Rand Simberg's "The Fable of the Shoes".

Like people who canÂ’t imagine life without a government post office, or air traffic control (itÂ’s private in Switzerland), or other things with which they have no experience, they canÂ’t conceive of space activities that donÂ’t consist of a few government employees on top of a really big rocket, with lots more government employees at desks in control rooms directing the show.

UPDATE 2: From Ben in the sidebar: Elizabeth Warren wants you to know that no one ever got rich on their own. Her basic error, which all leftists share, is that the rich are somehow taking advantage of everyone else, rather than using the commons as is their right (being taxpayers). Warren sees the capitalist using the commons; she does not see the wages they pay their employees, the taxes they pay, or the quality of life they bring to the community. Warren's viewpoint is made explicit when she says that businesses can "keep a big chunk" of their earnings -- all money belongs to Leviathan, don't you know, and they will graciously allow the business to keep some of their own money.
more...

Posted by: Monty at 05:03 AM | Comments (343)
Post contains 834 words, total size 7 kb.

Honor and duty sometimes lead us places we wish we'd never had to go.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:54 AM | Comments (190)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Dead Now: Executed at 11:08.

This blog post (and its sequels) details a more complicated case than Ann Coulter's column suggested.

The first thing is that the "Van full of Air Force witnesses" really did not see the shooter's face. They could identify him, they say, based on his clothing.

Clothing's important here. In the parking lot was a White Shirt and a Yellow Shirt. Everyone agrees the White Shirt shot and murdered Officer McPhail.

It also seems established that between one Sylvester Coles and one Troy Davis, one was wearing the Yellow Shirt (and therefore is innocent of the murder) and one was wearing the White Shirt (and therefore is guilty of the murder).

Who's who? Who is White Shirt, and guilty of a capital offense, and who is Yellow Shirt, and not guilty?

There is testimony that Coles was wearing the Yellow Shirt, and so is innocent, and Davis was wearing the White Shirt, and so is guilty. Unfortunately that testimony comes from Coles' sister, and even more unfortunately, she spins an odd tale of the men switching shirts.

She claims that her brother wore a yellow shirt as he ran back to her house, and swapped it for a red shirt she gave him. She claims that Davis, on the other hand, ran back to her house shirtless (implication: he took off the white shirt of the murderer), and, for reasons unclear, put on Coles' nasty sweaty yellow shirt for a few moments, before pulling it back off and throwing it back on the porch.

This testimony is all a bit weird, and one reasonable inference is that the sister is making up a story that turns her guilty brother, Coles -- the actual White Shirt killer -- into the innocent Yellow Shirt bystander, and seems to maybe be covering for inconsistencies in her story (perhaps earlier saying that Davis was wearing the yellow shirt, which would make Davis innocent and her brother guilty) by spinning a tale of shirts briefly worn and then discarded.

On the other hand, the blog dismisses eyewitness identifications of Davis as the killer. Coles and Davis (or at least White Shirt and Yellow Shirt) accosted and pistol-whipped a homeless man while he was drinking beer; it was the shouts of this homeless man that brought Officer MacPhail running over.

The homeless man says he didn't remember anything, but the police intimidated him into identifying Davis as the killer. That's one of the recantations.

But his girlfriend did in fact pick Davis out of a photo array. On the second try:

Ms. Murray was shown a photo array the night of the shooting, but could not identify the gunman. Several days later, the police showed her a second photo array, from which she identified Mr. Davis as the man who hit Mr. Young and shot the officer.

Coulter mentions the man who doesn't fully retract his testimony -- Darrell Collins continues to say it was Troy Davis wearing the White Shirt, which, when added to the other eyewitnesses (who agree White Shirt killed him), would seem to indicate Davis did shoot Officer MacPhail.

Although he says Davis was wearing the White Shirt, he says he was coerced by police into implicating Davis in an earlier shooting, and now says that despite being within ten feet of Davis when the shots were fired, he didn't see anything.

He also alleges that Coles was the one who struck the homeless man (the initial assault that brought MacPhail running to the scene)...

They told me that I would go to jail for a long time and I would be lucky if I ever got out, especially because a police officer got killedÂ… I didnÂ’t want to go to jail because I didnÂ’t do nothing wrong. I was only sixteen and was so scared of going to jail. They kept saying thatÂ…[Troy] had messed with that man up at Burger King and killed that officer. I told them that it was Red and not Troy who was messing with that man, but they didnÂ’t want to hear thatÂ…

That last bit is somewhat interesting, because others say the man who "messed" with the homeless man was also the man who shot the cop.

I don't know. It's a lot more convoluted and messy than I first thought. And in this situation -- a cop murdered sadistically by a gun-wielding member of a two-man wolfpack -- I can imagine cops making a lot of threats to get a conviction.

It's the classic two-man murder, one is guilty, and one is actually innocent (except for things that aren't capital offenses, like palling around with killers).

And which is which?

Coles rushed to the police station the next morning to implicate Davis in the murder.

Does that mean Coles was actually innocent?

Or does that mean Coles was smart enough to realize that someone was going to hang for this, and better to get the police focused on Davis?

If you like CSI, or Law & Order, especially those ambiguous-ending episodes, the whole murky mess is worth a read.

AP: A balanced piece, from AP.

Thanks to robrr.

Posted by: Ace at 07:25 PM | Comments (204)
Post contains 865 words, total size 5 kb.

True Fact: Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable

After almost 30 years and despite being the 15th highest grossing film of all time it turns out that Return of the Jedi has yet to show a profit on paper. This is all thanks to the magic of Hollywood Accounting where 98% of all movies end up 'losing money' and yet they just keep making more of them.

But of course these accounting rules are insane and the movie industry overall is quite profitable. And when the rules have come up in court, the juries have usually also found them insane and ruled against the studios. But they persist in doing it this way, laughing all the way to the Bel Air branch of Credit Suisse.

And this is why the actor who played Darth Vader, David Prowse, still hasn't seen even a single residual check from the RotJ:

“I get these occasional letters from Lucasfilm saying that we regret to inform you that as Return of the Jedi has never gone into profit, we’ve got nothing to send you. Now here we’re talking about one of the biggest releases of all time,” said Prowse. “I don’t want to look like I’m bitching about it,” he said, “but on the other hand, if there’s a pot of gold somewhere that I ought to be having a share of, I would like to see it.”

This is just one of the 6 Things the Film Industry DoesnÂ’t Want You to Know.

Oh and if your childhood hasn't been raped enough - here's Lucas' latest change in the Star Wars blu-ray. more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:17 PM | Comments (440)
Post contains 1147 words, total size 9 kb.

One of the questions in these cases is "What is reasonable doubt?"

If reasonable doubt is taken to mean "any doubt," then really any kind of legal filing would suffice to create "any doubt."

Allah quotes a former Reagan FBI director, William Sessions, making the case that there's enough doubt here to halt the execution.

One problem with his claims is this: He seems to get very vague as to the facts. He wants us to know that there have been "recantations," but is not eager to share with us the nature of those recantations.

I find Ann Coulter more detailed, even in a brief column, and between someone who wants to keep things vague and someone who wants to get specific -- well, I usually credit the person who's unafraid of the little details as probably being on to something.

Sessions also says something I don't believe, having read Coulter. Here's Sessions' claim on the recantations:

Some of these same witnesses also had testified at Davis’ trial but have since recanted their trial testimony. The judge at the evidentiary hearing found their recantations to be unreliable and, therefore, found Davis was unable to “clearly establish” his innocence. The problem is that the testimony of these same witnesses, whom the judge had determined were less believable, had been essential to the original conviction and death sentence.

Is that true? Were there only a couple of eyewitnesses, the lynchpin of the prosecutors' case, and, given they've now recanted, leave us with no credible accusers on the record against Davis?

According to Coulter, this does not appear true at all.

Two tall, young black men were harassing a vagrant in the Burger King parking lot, one in a yellow shirt and the other in a white Batman shirt. The one in the white shirt used a brown revolver to pistol-whip the vagrant. When a cop yelled at them to stop, the man in the white shirt ran, then wheeled around and shot the cop, walked over to his body and shot him again, smiling.

Some eyewitnesses described the shooter as wearing a white shirt, some said it was a white shirt with writing, and some identified it specifically as a white Batman shirt. Not one witness said the man in the yellow shirt pistol-whipped the vagrant or shot the cop.

Several of Davis' friends testified -- without recantation -- that he was the one in a white shirt. Several eyewitnesses, both acquaintances and strangers, specifically identified Davis as the one who shot Officer MacPhail.

Now the media claim that seven of the nine witnesses against Davis at trial have recanted.

First of all, the state presented 34 witnesses against Davis -- not nine -- which should give you some idea of how punctilious the media are about their facts in death penalty cases.

Among the witnesses who did not recant a word of their testimony against Davis were three members of the Air Force, who saw the shooting from their van in the Burger King drive-in lane. The airman who saw events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone."

Edited: I excerpted too much on the first draft. Click on the Coulter link for the rest.

Does Sessions think a significant doubt about Davis' guilt has been raised? Not to hear him tell it:

However, when it comes to the sentence of death, there should be no room for doubt.

"No room for doubt" is the standard pleaded for when there is, at most, only the sketchiest, most implausible doubt that can be raised.

If "no room for doubt" is the standard, no one could be executed, ever. In fact, no one could be convicted, period.

BTW, there was physical evidence, according to Coulter, in the form of cartridges recovered at the scene which matched cartridges from Davis' gun. Not the most conclusive of evidence, but one of those "gee, I guess he's just getting reeeeally unlucky with these coincidences" sorts of deals.

That one "recantation" is damning by what it doesn't say. As Troy Davis is about to be executed for murder, one of his acquaintances, merely says he can't be positive that he his friend shoot a man, from a sighting distance of five feet away?

That's pretty much just saying "I don't want to be responsible for his death, but I'm not going out on a limb for him, either." Guy can't even definitely say his old friend didn't do it. He's just no longer sure.

The execution is currently delayed as the US Supreme Court considers a stay.

Posted by: Ace at 04:56 PM | Comments (241)
Post contains 809 words, total size 5 kb.

Lamar Alexander ("Lamar!" for those older enough to remember his failed presidential bid) has resigned as Chairman of The Republican Conference, the number 4 slot on the GOP leadership team.

Seems he wants to be free to sell out the GOP on a more regular basis.

“What I’m giving up is a seat at the table for more independence,” Alexander said Tuesday in an interview shortly after he announced his decision to resign as Republican Conference chairman.

Alexander said he wants to steer the Senate back to its role as the chamber that forges the nationÂ’s great compromises.

His decision marked an about-face in a legislative career that, for nine years, had been aimed at advancement up the leadership ladder. Alexander had been widely expected to mount a campaign to become Republican whip, the No. 2 position in leadership — a spot he lost by a single vote in a bid five years ago.

With Jon Kyl retiring at the end of his term after the 2012 elections, the number 2 spot will be open again. Lamar! probably figured with more conservative members in the freshman class and more on the way, he'd likely lose any bid to move up.

With two spots open in the leadership team, there's bound to be plenty of jockeying for position amongst Republican Senators.

Which brings us to the new blood in the leadership team...freshman Ron Johnson from Wisconsin. Come January, he's going to run for the number 5 spot which is, vice-chair of the conference. And it looks like he already has the votes lined up.

It doesn't matter if Senate Republicans are getting the message or the moderates are simply getting outvoted. Putting a freshman, who came up through the tea party route, in a leadership spot is definitely the good kind of CHANGE!

Consider this: The vice-chairmanship is currently held by John Barrasso of Wyoming. Barrasso got the job when Lisa Murkowski was stripped of the spot after her write-in win over Joe Miller. Just think, less than a year ago it was Alexander and Murkowski running the conference and soon it will be Barrasso and Johnson. That definitely represents an improvement for conservatives in the Senate.

Add in another expected influx of conservative freshman after the 2012 elections and maybe, just maybe, the Senate won't be the graveyard of conservatism in the near future.

There should also be a lesson in the success of a guy like Johson for tea party activists across the country. Vetting candidates matters, especially at the statewide level. You can get away with running more, er, eccentric candidates in safely crafted congressional districts but in statewide races, candidates matter. Look at some of the freshman who won in '10: Pat Toomey from PA, Johnson from WI, and Marco Rubio from Florida. To win in swing states with these kind of candidates, you need to pick wisely. In red states you have more latitude but even in Utah, Mike Lee is a solid guy.

Hopefully after seeing someone like Johnson beat Russ Feingold potential candidates will see it's possible for tea party oriented conservatives to win these races and do well in the Senate. Maybe that will get some novices with solid backgrounds and good stories to tell to step up and take a shot at running this time around.

One last note. I'm sure everyone is thinking, "What about Rubio for leadership?" Well, he's likely going to be the VP nominee (though as I've said, in some cases I like Ron Johnson for the spot) so running for a leadership spot when you won't be around doesn't make a lot of sense. Also, the Senate is notoriously a strange web of relationships and image. You just never know why somethings happen there and others don't. There is also the possibility he just didn't want the gig.

Speaking of Rubio, not that there was any reason to doubt it but he's still pretty damn popular back in Florida.

Posted by: DrewM at 04:04 PM | Comments (156)
Post contains 674 words, total size 5 kb.

Do soldiers not work for a living? I think they do.

But all I ever hear about are the, uh, "Soldiers of the Classroom," I guess we're supposed to call them, because public employees like teachers are just like heroes risking their lives to safeguard our country.

In any event, Mr. Obama says he cannot cut a single dime more of discretionary spending, because of the disastrous effect this will have on employment (by which he means, employment among members of his electoral coalition); and yet, billions can be cut from Defense without this worry.

And how many job-losses would be directly attributable to the massive cuts in Defense? Quite a few.

o letÂ’s do the math. The number of jobs created by defense spending varies depending on the nature of the activity and how much each job pays, but itÂ’s a safe bet that at least one direct job is created for every $200,000 in spending. Thus, the $100 billion in annual military spending cuts that might be spawned by deficit-control legislation potentially accounts for 500,000 direct jobs. But thatÂ’s just the beginning, because numerous additional jobs are created in retail, construction, education and other pursuits as defense workers spend their income. Analysts argue endlessly about what this economic multiplier effect might be, however a very conservative guess would be that each direct job leads to the creation of at least one indirect job (the real number is probably over twice that). So even a restrained analysis suggests that $100 billion in defense cuts will wipe out a million jobs.

The figure I was tipped was "300,000-400,000," according to an insider.

But let's make sure no teachers lose their jobs, and by "lose their jobs," I mean "are required to either forgo scheduled pay raises or face the prospect of layoffs, and we know unions will choose the latter, because, hell, once you lose your job you're not in the union anymore so who cares."

The same criticism could have been, and was, leveled at his previous "stimulus." His operating theory was that if we just sprayed money around, it would eat up the slack in demand in the economy, so it really didn't matter where we spent it, so long as we spent it.

Okay, instead of spending money on dog-parks and bike-paths, how about not cutting the F-22 purchase order? That's spending money, isn't it? That's employing workers.

And, at the end of the day, we get some F-22's. Sweet deal, huh?

He didn't seem to think so.

And once again, as he tells us he will not permit a single government worker to lose his job in a bad economy (while millions of privately-employed citizens have been unemployed for three years), he undertakes... to shed over 300,000 and as many as 500,000 defense jobs.

Seems to be some disparate treatment going on here. I wonder what could account for that.

Thanks to Dave @ Garfield Ridge.

Posted by: Ace at 03:05 PM | Comments (242)
Post contains 538 words, total size 3 kb.

I was wondering why those tapes had been released. They were sort of interesting but not especially probative.

Who leaked them, and why?

We don't know the "why" but we do know the "who."

In a letter released on Wednesday to Acting Justice Department Inspector General Cynthia Schnedar, they expressed deep concern over her decision to turn over to U.S. prosecutors in Arizona audio recordings obtained during her investigation.

Representative Darrell Issa, head of the House Oversight Committee, and Charles Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Schnedar apparently did not consider the significant harm caused by giving the recordings to those under investigation.

They criticized the move as potentially obstructing the congressional probe into the operation because potential witnesses may have colluded about what to tell investigators.

via @williamamos, over Twitter.

Posted by: Ace at 02:23 PM | Comments (95)
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

Update: More tapes have been released, including one in which the Ks> ATF agent gun dealer refers to Bryan Terry as "collateral damage." (Corrected: The gun dealer made this statement; but the ATF agent adds an mm-hmm.)

To be honest, I don't see a huge advance of the story here, but it is interesting:

These recordings are important because MacAllister has never spoken publicly about her involvement in the operation and its fallout and Howard's role as a gun dealer cooperating with the ATF placed him in position to see "Fast and Furious" firsthand . The audio recordings contain new revelations about the guns involved, and ATF's efforts to respond to the breaking scandal. The tapes were turned over to Congressional investigators and the Inspector General in connection with their probe into "Fast and Furious."

The most important thing here is the general subject matter, which is "how do we make this go away?," rather than "How do we get the story out to show how perfectly we behaved?"

EXCERPT 2

Dealer: But you have got to put the word out there to all the departments tell the f------g FBI shut the f--- up. (whispering)

Agent: FBI'S got their own problems, trust me.

Dealer: I know I hear.

Agent: They've got their own problems.

Dealer: Hypothetically.

Agent: If anybody's gonna get sued it's gonna be the FBI in my opinion.

EXCERPT 3

Dealer: What is it with the FBI they just have a h--- on for you guys or what?

Agent: The FBI's got their own problems. Like I said they're focusing on our problems they should probably turn it inward, cause they got their own problems right now.

Dealer: That ain't no lie.

Agent: So.. so hahaha.

Darrell Issa did a conference call with bloggers on Monday, and he said he expects the matter to be taken over by a Special Prosecutor at some point.

Issa wants to "wrap this up by the end of the year" but doesn't believe the administration stonewalling will allow him to meet that deadline. He told one blogger, "I would very much like to have a true special prosecutor on this," but pointed out that he did not want one just yet for that would cause his investigation to shut down for intents and purposes and he wanted to know a lot more before that happened so that he could make sure that the prosecutor was doing his/her job.

...

I asked: about FBI complicity in Gunwalker. "Given that we now know about FBI paid informants further up the cartel chain and a third gun that 'disappeared' from the Terry murder scene indicating the FBI is covering up the true circumstances of his death, when will we see Robert Mueller and his apparently-complicit minions under oath?" Issa indicated that he thought the third weapon disappeared because "people were panicking." He added later, "The smoking gun is the gun that killed Brian Terry."

A little more on that from Bob Owens:

Issa also revealed that the reason a special prosecutor has not yet been brought in to investigate the plot is that once a special prosecutor begins to investigate, the Oversight Committee has to stop its own inquiry. The committee wants to be certain that they have explored every avenue and leave no source or witness uninvestigated before turning over the case. He also pointed out that a special prosecutor will be a Department of Justice employee investigating his own employer. Thus, Issa wants to be certain that they have enough knowledge to hold the prosecutor accountable.

Issa suspects an Obama-controlled Special Prosecutor might cover it up? How absurd!

Owens continues:

I had the unique opportunity to ask Chairman Issa a point-blank question that seems to trouble so many people following this scandal.

After reiterating that every law enforcement agent that has been asked about Operation Fast and Furious has said that there is no way that it could have been a viable law enforcement operation, I asked Chairman Issa if there was any evidence of another reason for the implementation of Operation Fast and Furious and the other alleged gun-walking operations.

“This was dumb, it was useless, and it was lethal,” was the soundbite most of us will take away from the call in answer to that question, but his longer answer — which I regret I do not have a transcript of — is far more telling.

Nothing in his response could be construed to mean that Rep. Issa thought Operation Fast and Furious was a legitimate law enforcement operation. And if it does not appear to have been implemented as a legitimate law enforcement operation, then we are left with the possible alternative that the goal of the operation was both illegitimate and unlawful.

Issa put it rather bluntly: “The administration wanted to show that guns found in Mexico came from the United States.”

That's not the same as the "Reichstag Fire" scenario being floated, but it certainly does suggest a political motive rather than a law enforcement one. The "experiment" here might have never been intended to result in deaths; nevertheless, according to Issa, it was still performed to settle a political dispute, not lock up criminals (except as an incidental benefit).

And the death toll from Fast as Furious? At least 150 murders (including high-profile victims, such as a Mexican Attorney General), maybe 200, and maybe... three hundred.

Marisela Morales, MexicoÂ’s attorney general and a longtime favorite of American law enforcement agents in Mexico, told The Times that she first learned about Fast and Furious from news reports. And to this day, she said, U.S. officials have not briefed her on the operation gone awry, nor have they apologized.

“At no time did we know or were we made aware that there might have been arms trafficking permitted,” Morales, Mexico’s highest-ranking law enforcement official, said in a recent interview. “In no way would we have allowed it, because it is an attack on the safety of Mexicans.”…

In March 2010, with a growing number of guns lost or showing up at crime scenes in Mexico, ATF officials convened an “emergency briefing” to figure out a way to shut down Fast and Furious. Instead, they decided to keep it going and continue to leave Mexico out of the loop…

Mexican Congressman Humberto Benitez Trevino, who heads the justice committee in the Chamber of Deputies, said the number of people killed or wounded by the weapons had probably doubled to 300 since March, when he said confidential information held by Mexican security authorities put the figure at 150. The higher number, he said, was his own estimate.

You know, a rather large segment of the public got very upset over their suspicions that George Bush deliberately permitted (or even executed) a plan to kill almost 3000 people for political benefit.

We seem to have here a much stronger case that the Obama Administration's action killed up to 300. Except for Brian Terry, they weren't Americans (but we'll probably discover more). But still: 300.

Is this really a middle-of-the-newspaper story?

200-300 murders facilitated by a regime in a "rogue" (maybe!) covert operation, and the media continues to shrug?

How many murders, exactly, would it take to get their attention?

What if the death toll hits 400? Is that enough for the nightly news? Do we need 500?

Would an even thousand do it?

Posted by: Ace at 01:33 PM | Comments (163)
Post contains 1257 words, total size 8 kb.