Friday, September 12, 2014
Labels: Mika Brzezinski
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Well, Wolf Blitzer showed that he is either a complete moron when it comes to deadly force encounters or that he really did just want to fan the flames of this already intense series of events.
Of the more than 300 million people in this country, roughly 800,000 are law enforcement officers with training in deadly force decision-making and use of force tactics. It should be noted that not one single officer is trained to “shoot to kill.” The goal of deadly force, when employed, is to “stop the threat.” That goes for anyone who uses or may use deadly force while defending life and limb. The goal of using deadly force is to cause the attacker to quickly cease his or her violent behavior. If the attacker dies as a result of the force used to defend against the attack, that is an unfortunate and tragic result of the attacker’s action. The intent of the defender was not and is not to kill the attacker, but rather to stop the attacker. This is proven by the fact that so many officers, after shooting their attackers, immediately provide first aid.
Blitzer further reveals his stupidity by suggesting police should fire a warning shot “in the air.” That is just as irresponsible as our moron Vice President saying we should fire blindly into the air! Where is that bullet going to come down? We know that we are responsible for every round we fire. That means we want those rounds on target.
More at US Concealed Carry Association
Labels: Wolf Blitzer
Friday, September 5, 2014
|Charles C Johnson|
Labels: Charles C Johnson
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Psaki: In Iraq? Well, the Iraqi government has invited the United States in to help them address this threat and that’s the legal authority.
Rosen: And he has reported to Congress on this subject, has he not?
Rosen: Under the aegis of what statute?
Psaki: He does War Powers Acts every time there’s a need to notify Congress.
Rosen: So we have a commander in chief that launched more than 100 air strikes at a given enemy who is reporting to the Congress under the aegis of the War Powers Act. Who is watching our people beheaded by this enemy, but who for some reason feels queasy about saying that we are in fact at war with this enemy?
Psaki: James, I think — I’m not going to put new words into the mouth of the President of the United States. My point is that his actions to authorize these strikes, his effort to send Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, any resource we have in the United States to lead the building of a coalition speak to his commitment to his commitment to taking on this threat. And of course we want to see ISIL destroyed, but that is not an overnight effort.
Labels: James Rosen
Friday, August 29, 2014
Spencer graduated from Penn State in 1991 following a successful All-American diving career, receiving a degree in broadcast journalism.
SOURCE: Penn State College
Labels: Lara Spencer
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
“We are alarmed by the extreme, racist dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society, which has reached a fever-pitch,” said the statement, which ran as a half-page ad and was sponsored by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, founded in 2008.
The statement was signed by more than 300 people and issued in response to a recent ad by Elie Wiesel published in the Times, The Washington Post and The New York Observer, among other prominent news outlets, comparing the actions of Hamas, the militant Palestinian organization, to the Nazis. The Wiesel ad stimulated much controversy and attention—it was rejected by The London Times, as exclusively reported by the Observer, and was then accepted by The Guardian, to the horror of many of that paper’s readers.
“Furthermore,” the letter continued, “we are disgusted and outraged by Elie Wiesel’s abuse of our history in these pages to justify the unjustifiable: Israel’s wholesale effort to destroy Gaza and the murder of more than 2,000 Palestinians, including many hundreds of children.”
SOURCE: New York Observer
Labels: New York Times
Friday, August 22, 2014
Monday, August 18, 2014
Drug reform has been a core goal of libertarians for decades. The war on drugs has done as much as any policy in modern U.S. history to erode the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th Amendment, to squander taxpayer dollars, to militarize the police, and to empower murderous cartels abroad. The reforms we’re witnessing constitute significant expansions of liberty.
Yet many who think of themselves as libertarians (or who are friendly to many but not all libertarian goals, like me) don’t particularly care who is ascendant in Washington, or what party affiliation appears beside the name of a legislator. If fewer people are caged for inhaling the smoke of a plant, that’s a libertarian victory. If fewer people’s doors are kicked in late at night by police officers dressed in combat fatigues, that’s a libertarian victory. If more cancer patients can legally obtain a substance that alleviates their suffering, that’s a libertarian victory. If fewer assets are seized by police without proof of guilt, that’s a libertarian victory. (Were I to embrace the rhetorical tactics of Paul Krugman, I might point to the war on drugs and ask, “Is non-libertarain domestic policy at all realistic?”)
On issues where libertarians have a somewhat realistic chance of winning over their fellow citizens—reining in the NSA, eliminating the most inane professional licensing laws, insisting on due process in the War on Terrorism, avoiding foolish wars of choice, ending the war on drugs, reducing the prison population and the militarization of the police—a “libertarian moment” would have a salutary effect on American life. Commentators like Frum, Chait, and Krugman don’t see this in large part because, if their output is indicative of their beliefs and priorities, they aren’t particularly troubled by NSA spying, or inane professional licensing laws, or civil asset forfeiture, or foolish wars of choice, or the war on drugs. For them, the path to a better America is further empowering an enlightened faction of technocrats within the political party to which they’re loyal. On particular issues, their respective prescriptions are sometimes worth trying. But I notice egregious incompetence and abuses—and lots of innocents dying needlessly—on the watches of the leaders they’ve overzealously supported. Libertarians have concrete policy proposals to protect against such ills. One needn’t embrace their entire philosophy to see the wisdom in them.
Labels: Conor Friedersdorf