It’s Monday, December 8th, 2014…but before we begin, two brief observations. Numero uno’s on The Obamao, who had this to say to BET during an interview scheduled to air later this afternoon:
Alles klar, Herr Kommissar. Only the deepest roots of racism in America today are firmly affixed in your heart, Mr. President; along with that of your wife, associates and indeed the entire Progressive political movement. How callous, indifferent and hateful must Liberals be to condemn an entire race of people to generations of pain, suffering and indentured servitude in order to gain/maintain political power, personal wealth or…simply sleep better at night?!?
Next, a quick observation on the imperfect College Football Playoff format which replaced the imperfect Bowl Championship Series. It’s not that we won’t be treated to a pair of great games on January 1st, nor whether the Buckeyes deserve to be in the top four. It’s the way the committee arrived at their final choices, taking a TCU team which won it’s last game 55-3 and dropping them three places from 3rd to 6th!
Look, we don’t have a dog, or more accurately in our case, a goat in this fight. But if TCU was the 3rd-best football team in the country one week, they’re not 6th-best the next after scoring such a lopsided win; a victory in which the final tally might easily have been 75-3 had the Horned Frogs known they needed to run up the score to impress this demonstrably dimwitted committee.
Sure, Ohio State thoroughly drubbed Wisconsin, and they’re on a roll; but they were on a roll last week…when they were #5. And though previous #4 FSU beat Georgia Tech, it was yet another in a season-long series of close calls; so what makes them better than TCU this week that didn’t the last? As for Baylor, while they certainly made a great comeback against TCU back in October, they were aided by some incredibly questionable officiating late in the 4th quarter. Oh…and they were number #6 last week.
It all adds up to “Meet the new NCAA football championship format, same as the old NCAA football championship format”.
Now, here’s The Gouge!
Our top story today, as evidenced by Eleanor Holmes Norton’s total lack of interest in the truth (see today’s Tales From the Dark Side video clip (#3) above), Ferguson was a fabricated farce. However, reasonable people can reasonably disagree on the wisdom, necessity and legality of the police actions which resulted in the death of Eric Garner. And any number of rock-solid Conservatives do, as demonstrated by the differing opinions offered in these next three items. First, writing at Townhall.com, Mark Davis provides not only his analysis of the Eric Garner verdict, but a few other thoughts we might want to keep in mind while…
Resistance: it’s not only futile, it’s just plain ig’nant!
“…I’m not immune to the power of the Garner video. I wish I could jump into a time machine and prevent the whole sad thing from happening. I would not go back to the point of the takedown, however. I would go back farther to counsel Mr. Garner on the ill wisdom of resisting arrest— or maybe back even farther, to offer suggestions against breaking the law in the first place.
But while we cannot jump back in time, we most surely can put aside our visceral reactions to the video in order to put ourselves in the shoes of the grand jurors. They were not asked whether the video upset them. They were not asked if the events were disturbing to watch. They were not asked whether the arrest went flawlessly. They were asked whether Officer Daniel Pantaleo broke the law in the dispatch of his duties. Their answer was no.
If they had chosen to indict, I would have respected their decision. Unlike Ferguson, the Garner case presents a wide swath of reasonable options. The decision not to indict is surely well within that range, and deserves to be spared criticism from people who are following some other drumbeat.
Krauthammer advocated an involuntary manslaughter charge “at the very least,” tapping into two facts that are entirely irrelevant: “The guy was unarmed and the crime was as petty as they come.” Excuse me? This cries out for another Charles— Barkley in this instance— to sit down and explain to one of America’s top thinkers what was at issue here. “When the cops are trying to arrest you, if you fight back, things go wrong,” the NBA legend told CNN this week.
That is why Mr. Garner is dead. His lack of a sidearm and the absurdity of the law he broke are of no consequence in a case of an enormous man with vast health problems choosing to fight police making a lawful arrest…”
In other words, it’s like Chris Rock said:
Second, Jonah Goldberg, a man whose thinking we deeply respect, takes a more Libertarian view in suggesting…
“Reasonable people can disagree on whether racism was involved in the tragic death of Eric Garner. My own suspicion is that this misfortune could have transpired just as easily with a white man resisting arrest and/or a black cop choking him.
And even though lots of people don’t want to hear it, reasonable can disagree on whether illegally excessive force was to blame. Personally, watching the ubiquitous video of Garner’s arrest, it looks like excessive force to me. But the simple fact is that a Staten Island grand jury saw evidence that led it to conclude otherwise. People should at least entertain the possibility that it might have gotten the ruling right. (Reasonable people!)
But you know what reasonable people can’t dispute? New York’s cigarette taxes are partly to blame for Eric Garner’s death…”
Lastly, courtesy of NRO, Andrew McCarthy is a little more blunt as he more affirmatively conjectures…
“…The justification statute distinguishes physical force from deadly physical force. The latter may be used only if the officer reasonably believes that the subject has committed a violent felony, is armed with a deadly weapon, or is about to use deadly physical force against the officer or someone else. Based on what we know at the moment, Garner did not fit any of these categories: The untaxed cigarette sales police observed were not violent crimes; he was reportedly unarmed; and, though the video shows him resisting arrest, his resistance was along the lines of waving his arms in a manner that made it difficult for police to cuff him. He does not appear to have menaced the police. Indeed, it looks as if he may not even have seen Pantaleo before the latter came up from behind him while he was evading the grasp of other officers.
So let’s assume Pantaleo did not use deadly force. That still leaves open the question at the heart of the matter: Was the force that he did use reasonable under the circumstances? This is why I think the debate over the chokehold is mainly an academic diversion. The salient issue is reasonableness. Even if we assume that a banned chokehold was not used, it is still entirely possible that the forcible tacticsPantaleo did employ were excessive.
It is here that the grand jury’s conclusion that there was no probable cause to indict is most vulnerable to attack. Again, we do not know all the evidence in the record so it is perilous to opine. But as the confrontation is depicted on the video, there is a good argument that Officer Pantaleo used more force than was reasonably necessary to effect the arrest, prevent flight, or prevent injury to himself or other officers…”
We’re frankly of an opinion which is a blend of all three. First and foremost, as all three commentators rightly noted, we don’t know the facts the grand jury considered in reaching their decision. That being said, (a). had Eric Garner submitted to his umpteenth arrest, or not been illegally selling loosies while out on bail for three previous arrests, he’d still be alive; (b). New York City’s cigarette taxes are unconscionably high; and (c). as our middle son Mike so accurately observed, at the very least, the NYPD should have given Garner very detailed instructions what he needed to do, along with what they were going to do if he didn’t comply with their lawful instructions.
And yes, the NYPD would have approached and apprehended an overweight asthmatic White guy just as readily as they did Mr. Garner. And most importantly, particularly in light of the statistics cited by Bill O’Reilly in the Video of the Day above, no, there is no conspiracy among American law enforcement authorities to kill Blacks, unarmed or otherwise.
If only the same were true of the Black community itself.
But what inquiring minds want to know is why didn’t they just taser him? And why did they bring the cast of Ben Hur to take down a single suspect selling loosies?!?
In a related item, courtesy of PJMedia, more from Andrew McCarthy, who once again questions the veracity of The Dear Misleader as he wonders…
“…Before he was president, Barack Obama once famously declared that there was no black American or white America but a United States of America. Many of us doubted his sincerity, and we have been proven right as he and his subordinates — especially his Justice Department — have governed in a way designed to divide and alienate minority groups against the country.
When it comes to the great constitutional principle of equal protection under the law in the age of Obama, it is not that there is a black America and a white America. It is that there are political supporters of the president who get one quality of justice, and political opponents and convenient political scapegoats for whom “justice” is a weapon their government has turned against them.”
And speaking of prevaricating Progressives, one’s the subject of this rather extensive expose by John Nolte writing at Briebart.com:
That’s “L”, as in “loser”…and “liar”!
“Asking whether or not a victim is telling the truth is irrelevant,” Ms. Hess proclaimed. “It’s just not important if they are telling the truth.” – Oberlin College WOBC radio station manager Sophie Hess responding to Breitbart‘s John Nolte’s inquiry into the truth of Lena Dunham’s rape fable.
Though a bit lengthy, it’s well worth reading, especially in light of the latest example of the Liberal media’s blatant disinterest in the facts:
…Mollie Hemingway, a media critic and senior editor at The Federalist, said she followed the story closely, from her “emotional” reading of the Rolling Stone story to the questions that soon followed. She said she prides herself on reading critically, but acknowledged buying in to Erdely’s story until only recently.
“This has been an absolutely devastating blow to Rolling Stone’s credibility,” she said. “[Erdely] has a lot to answer for as well. She literally took the memories of one person who claimed to have been traumatized and built an entire story around it.
“But the worst things is that people who are victims of rape will not be believed,” Hemingway said. “That is the worst part of this story. I don’t think the writer or this magazine could have done more damage to victims of rape if they had set out to.”
Since we’re on the subject of well-documented Liberal liars, as FOX News reports:
“…Touting an approach she calls “smart power,” Clinton urged America to use “every possible tool and partner” to advance peace. This, she said, includes “leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”…”
Yeah; that oughta play well in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election!
For more on an Administration, indeed, an entire political party that stinks like a whorehouse at low tide, we turn to Michelle Malkin and her report detailing…
“…As I noted in “Culture of Corruption” in 2009, Rezko pulled the strings at the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board overseeing medical construction projects. Whitaker sat as the resident stooge “overseeing” that panel’s budget, which crooked Rezko exploited to solicit kickbacks and payoffs. His wanton abuse of power over the agency led to his 2011 conviction. Whitaker claimed he knew nothing.
It seems that everyone Whitaker has surrounded himself with is either in jail or on trial. The corruptitis is contagious. Last summer, the feds indicted Whitaker’s former chief of staff, Quinshaunta R. Golden, on bribery, theft and fraud charges related to the embezzlement of $433,000 in state health department funds. Golden and another Whitaker underling, Roxanne Jackson, pleaded guilty this spring. Once again, Whitaker claimed he knew nothing.
Fun fact: Whitaker also happens to be the man identified by author Edward Klein as the fixer who attempted to bribe the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright to keep quiet about his friendship with Barack Obama…”
We’ll take a wild guess and predict Whitaker claimed he knew nothing. What a surprise, particularly in light of his close association with a man who’s never known…
…about anything! Other than of course golf, fundraising and Marx.
Meanwhile, in today’s edition of the Environmental Moment, more evidence portions of the Left are awakening to the threat The Obamao poses to the Constitution and the Founding Father’s vision of America; as the WSJ reports…
Saaaayyyy whaaattt?!?
“In his Harvard days, Barack Obama studied under law professor Laurence Tribe. Perhaps the future President spent too much time at the law review and missed the part about limited powers. We say that because Professor Tribe delivered a constitutional rebuke this week to the Obama Administration that is remarkable coming from a titan of the liberal professoriate.
Mr. Tribe joined with the world’s largest private coal company, Peabody Energy , to criticize the “executive overreach” of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants. In joint comments filed with the EPA, the professor accuses the agency of abusing statutory law, violating the Constitution’s Article I, Article II, the separation of powers, the Tenth and Fifth Amendments, and in general displaying contempt for the law…”
Along with contempt for anything else related to America, her Constitution or the rule of law!
On the Lighter Side…
Yes…and then you marry her; and pay every day…for the rest of your life!
Magoo
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.