|On December 14, 2010, Brian was conducting operations as a member of the Border Patrol Tactical Unit in Nogales, Arizona. Brian and his team were targeting a “rip crew” who seek out to rob and assault drug runners. When Brian and his team encountered the 5 individuals in the “Peck Well” area near Rio Rico, Arizona shots were fired and Brian was shot in the lower back and mortally wounded during the exchange of gunfire and succumbed to his death on December 15, 2010.|
Here is how the NY Times sees “Fast and FuriousReplyDelete
The Republicans shamelessly turned what should be a routine matter into a pointless constitutional confrontation. And the White House responded as most administrations do at some point: it invoked executive privilege to make a political problem go away.
While Mr. Holder has turned over more than 7,600 documents to the committee, he has withheld some subpoenaed documents. The committee’s chairman, Representative Darrell Issa, has treated this refusal as a cover-up of wrongdoing by the Justice Department. Mr. Holder claims that surrendering some of the documents would jeopardize criminal investigations and the confidentiality of the department’s decision-making process.
Under Operation Fast and Furious, which ran between 2009 and early 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives let about 2,000 assault weapons slip across the border to Mexico so the guns could be tracked up the drug cartel ladder. The bureau kept A.T.F. agents in Mexico in the dark while their superiors botched the surveillance. Some of the guns turned up in deadly shootouts, including one where an American border agent was slain.
The House committee’s contempt resolution focuses largely on internal Justice Department documents that relate to a Feb. 4, 2011, letter sent by the department to Senator Charles Grassley. That letter falsely denied that the A.T.F. had engaged in a gunrunning strategy that sent weapons across the border.
The department eventually retracted the letter in late 2011 and acknowledged that it was wrong. Mr. Holder said that department leaders inadvertently passed on bad information. Republican officials now want to see communications between Justice Department officials about the handling of that inquiry and whistle-blower complaints.
Mr. Issa has relished making this investigation a political fight. Last week, he seemed to bait Mr. Holder when he said in a statement, “the Obama administration has not asserted executive privilege or any other valid privilege,” so it could not refuse to produce the materials.
On Wednesday, for the first time since he was elected, President Obama invoked executive privilege on the disputed documents. Doing so now bars prosecution of Mr. Holder in federal court should the full House vote to hold him in contempt of Congress.
Executive privilege cannot and should not be allowed to shield the executive branch from regular, valuable Congressional oversight. There was no reason the House committee and the Justice Department could not work out a deal to produce the documents requested, or some form of them. Instead, they show again that every issue, large or small, can be turned into ammunition for political combat
A Pointless Partisan FightDelete
The matter is now in Boehner’s hands. The speaker said he will call for a full House vote next week.ReplyDelete
If the House approves the contempt citation, the matter would be turned over the to US Attorney for the District of Columbia for criminal prosecution.
Holder called the vote an “election-year tactic” and denied that he has been uncooperative.
I think Obama and Holder are hiding things that could convict them. President Obama and the White House responded to the will of Congress by throwing down the gauntlet, as the prelude to a fight. This could have been avoided by the White House, who could have simply maintained their dignity above the fray in an election year, yet chose to engage the Constitutional authority of Congress for what possible purpose ?Delete
That this could possibly benefit the President, who clearly chose "political combat", rather than reasoned discourse is not beneficial to Obama, unless the purpose is to divert attention away from the economy and the severity of the jobs crisis, as another graduating class from high schools to college and graduate school, hit the streets to earnestly pursue jobs which are not there.
Holder and Obama are worried about something.
It's hard to believe they could be so damn dumb.
And it is wonderful poetic justice to see it come back and bite them in the ass, all the while the American people continue to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, the crime rate falls, and, at least, the gun segment of the economy turns a massive profit.
I hope we see some criminal charges.
Just listen to Obama talking about executive privilege.ReplyDelete
What do you think?
If you have to say "they all do it,” wrong, they don’t.
Holder and Obama are worried about something.ReplyDelete
I have no clue but I agree that Obama could have remained above this which leaves me marginally surprised. It could be something more old-fashioned and simple, taking care of business means taking care of friends:
Obama Bundlers from 2008 included Eric Holder (cool half a million.)
(2012 Bundler List)
RE: They all do it.
They do. Clinton 14 times and GWB six times. (Bush invoked executive privilege "in substance" in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President Dick Cheney's meetings with energy executives, which was not appealed by the GAO.)
Technically you are correct. However, Obama had the letter claiming executive privilege in his top drawer. The issue of hundreds of Mexicans shot and many murdered with the US supplied weapons to drug gangs and the resultant death of a US border agent is worthy of open and full disclosure. There is more to this story and cover-up.Delete
Still nothing on the front page of the world’s "most respected" news source about Holder and Obama’s executive privilege.ReplyDelete
It is thrilling watching Romney seizing the moment. Obama is nothing if not lucky.ReplyDelete
Sarah Palin recently had some advice for Mitt, which went something like this: 'Take off the mittens, Mitt, use your fists. Don't be polite like we were polite. Attack the bastard'Delete
NBC Might Replace Ann Curry on Today: LINKReplyDelete
Lordy. Americana in the Comments.
(But I always wondered about her weird eyes.)
Lordy. Americana in the Comments.Delete
I admit to being totally out of it. I swear I'd never heard of her before.
She's no Paris Hilton, I'll say that.
In 2009, the US government instructed Arizona gun sellers illegally to sell arms to suspected criminals. Agents working for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (AFT) were then ordered not to stop the sales but to allow the arms to “walk” across the border into the arms of Mexican drug-traffickers. According to the Oversight Committee’s report, “The purpose was to wait and watch, in hope that law enforcement could identify other members of a trafficking network and build a large, complex conspiracy case…. [The AFT] initially began using the new gun-walking tactics in one of its investigations to further the Department’s strategy. The case was soon renamed ‘Operation Fast and Furious.”ReplyDelete
Tracing the arms became difficult, until they starting appearing at bloody crime scenes. Many Mexicans have died from being shot by AFT sanctioned guns, but the scandal only became public after a US federal agent, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, was killed by one of them in a fire fight. AFT whistle blowers started to come forward and the Department of Justice was implicated. It’s estimated that the US government effectively supplied 1,608 weapons to criminals, at a total value of over $1 million. Aside from putting American citizens in danger, the AFT also supplied what now amounts to a civil war within Mexico.
It’s important to note that the Bush administration oversaw something similar to Fast and Furious. Called Operation Wide Receiver, it used the common tactic of “controlled delivery,” whereby agents would allow an illegal transaction to take place, closely follow the movements of the arms, and then descend on the culprits. But Fast and Furious is different because it was “uncontrolled delivery,” whereby the criminals were essentially allowed to drop off the map. Perhaps more importantly, Wide Receiver was conducted with the cooperation of the Mexican government. Fast and Furious was not.
We need an Operation Inside Linebacker, which is where you infiltrate the organization, or Operation Quarterback Sneak, where you actually take over the organization. I suggest agent Quirk as the brains. I also conceive of an Operation Summer Steelhead Run which is where I come in, where you basically say the hell with it and go fishing, at least causing no harm.Delete
ObamaCare decision might come today. Here's another article about how things are working out in Merrie Ol' England -
One third of deaths in the UK now occur on the "Liverpool Death Pathway," the NHS euphemism of sticking a label on your toe indicating "Ready for death." The average time to die after that designation is 33 hours.
That's a nice touch, sticking a tag on your toe.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/socialized_medicine_in_uk_uses_death_pathway_for_inconvenient_elderly.html#ixzz1yQnVhjMm
Operation Death Pathway would have a nice ring to it too.
I propose commenter Rufus to run Operation Death Pathway as he supports all this socialized medicine nonsense.Delete
How Long Do Canadians Wait for Healthcare?
by Ryan Prior Jun 20, 2012 10:25 PM EDT
According to a new study by Canada's Fraser Institute, surgical waitlists are costing the nation about $1 billion each year in lost productivity. The average Canadian can now expect to wait 9.5 weeks for treatment with a medical specialist, this number up from 9.3 weeks last year.
While most stories report on the personal pain of waiting for care, Fraser's new report "The Private Cost of Public Queues," breaks ground in assigning a specific monetary value to the Canadian economy's loss each year due to the rationing in its single-payer healthcare system.
Based on a 2011 Statistics Canada finding, the study makes the assumption that 11% of patients "were adversely affected by their wait for non-emergency surgery." Dividing the cost individually, health rationing for Canada's 941,321 patients seeking specialized surgery came out to $3,500 per patient in lost wage hours.
According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, healthcare spending annually totals about $200 billion, or $5,800 per person when spread across the country's 35 million residents.
Canada's Financial Post recently reported that the study also found that the loss in productivity amounts to $3 billion when adding in long emergency room visits and the cost of leaving work to see doctors.
With more and more attention being placed on Canada’s poor productivity relative to other industrialized nations, Mr. Esmail [the author of Fraser's study] says it’s high time Canada’s leaders begin examining more efficient means of providing health care through a socialized healthcare model that operates parallel to a private care model that is open to competition (similar to the model used in Japan and numerous European nations).
How long do the 40 Million Americans w/o Health Insurance wait for healthcare?Delete
Ask them how nine and a half weeks sound.
Perhaps more importantly, Wide Receiver was conducted with the cooperation of the Mexican government. Fast and Furious was not.ReplyDelete
That needs some backup. From what I have read, the Felipe Calderon "government" has been fully penetrated by the drug cartels which implies that "support of the Mexican government" is almost a non-sequitor. (Nice NYT piece here.)
Boiling it down to one sentence, the magnitude of the border corruption is too deep to give much credibility to some form of "intent." They are drug cartels. Unlike many governments, they are serious. The Mexican government has been fully compromised. Next is USA. And it looks like "someone" may have done a very good job, especially if your assertion is in any way correct. Our federal government seems vulnerable to being taken advantage of. We look like patsies. Conspiracy theories should not be surprising. Which is why I thought Holder should go. My guess is that Obama is playing the loyalty card, given the David Maraniss portrait.
And that in no way indicates my support for any of this border devolution.
More from the oil angle:
Well, if for no other reason, Mexico’s drug cartels have declared a de facto war with the government for control of the country’s northern provinces for exports routes into the United States.
But it’s worth remembering that the U.S.-Mexican border, all 1,969 miles of it, is the only place in the world where the Third World washes up against the First. One can make a case for the divided Korean peninsula being a similar case, but the populations on both sides of the DMZ share a common culture, unlike the U.S-Mexican frontier, where a desperately poor Latino culture exists next door to the rich, English-speaking U.S. society.
We are idiots for not placing land mines all the way across. Would save lives in the long run. When a crap culture bumps up against an advanced culture, watch out. Crap cultures really have a lot of staying power. Advanced cultures often don't.Delete
But, each country is free to commit suicide in its own way!
a desperately poor Latino culture exists next door to the rich, English-speaking U.S. society.Delete
I give the writer a D- for syntax and grammar. but extend the benefit of a doubt for content.
I think he meant "poor" and "Latino", not the former as an adjective for the latter. Same for "rich" and "English."
There is a reason why the 3x longer Canadian border is relatively peaceful.
Sure, it's too damned cold up there to grow a decent crop of "choom." :)Delete
Common sense tells you that the Drug Cartels, and the Mexican "government" are, for all practical purposes, one and the same.ReplyDelete
Common sense might suggest that since the US Government has been providing weapons to the drug cartels, the US Government, the Mexican Government, and the drug cartels are all one and the same.ReplyDelete
This is the government I support with my tax money.
What a glorious day in the neighborhood!
Well, fuck yeah . . . .Delete
After all, we sent troops half-way around the world to guard the poppy fields.
The "war on drugs" is a Great business for government, and the elites.
In the last four years, Global Oil Exports are down about 1 1/2 Million bbl/day.ReplyDelete
Meantime, Chinese, and Indian Imports are Up about 3 1/2 Million bbl/day.
The Five Million bbl/day Deficit came out of the asses of the OECD Nations.
This Trend is Continuing.
Mazama Oil Export Databrowser
I wonder if dumb fuck Max has any idea the amount of innocent blood on Holder's account in the Clinton and Obama admins?ReplyDelete
...as if firing six judges (after Clinton fired 93 on entering office) places Bush in the same league as the the DOMESTIC-terror-enabling Clinton-Holder-Obama league.
I wonder if you'll ever post anything without resorting to a crude, offensive, and childish ad hominem attack on another commenter.Delete
Dumb fuck is as dumb fuck does.Delete
I could comment on the brilliance of spending 9 million bucks per green job.Delete
That's some enlightened shit.
Holder should be in prison, simple as that.Delete
...but not to Max, our brilliant, esteemed, associate.
Well, what does a job in a nuclear power plant cost asshole?Delete
$9 Billion in ‘Stimulus’ for Solar, Wind Projects Made 910 Final Jobs -- $9.8 Million Per JobDelete
I expect the Bush league is a rather lonely place, as I'm sure you know.Delete
I have formally stated my endorsement of Holder's resignation, as the more appropriate denouement, but I would have been satisfied if he were dropped from the second Obama term.
(Note to Deuce: I have spread your joke about Obama dropping Michelle if he thought it would help, to the amusement of many and all.)
Dire Straits - Brothers in ArmsReplyDelete
Department of "Justice" gotta love it!ReplyDelete
Obama: If I had a mother, she'd look like Trayvon Martin'sReplyDelete
Fast and Furious, the movie.ReplyDelete
The "problem" with drugs and Holder, who should have behaved with common sense and kept himself and his office spit squeaky clean next to the ATF stuff which was still being run by holdover Cowboys, is the mob thuggery which, unchecked, leads to narco-states (DR used to point out that 40,000 plus is a major physical conflict - might as well call it war); and the class of drug end-user, which isn't the poor. Holder should have been smarter. Same for Obama.ReplyDelete
Obama's crew were/are hard-left. As a result, they brought in some really unqualified people (many/most of which are still there) to run the show. Holder has been a disaster from most reasonable perspectives, but Attorney Generals usually are.Delete
"The "problem" with drugs and Holder..."Delete
Proof of her dumb fuck ignorance.
A Black Hole for actual knowledge of the subject of her brilliant comments.
MSM shields shills from FACTS.ReplyDelete
Ever heard from the son of the man murdered by terrorists later pardoned by Holder, Max?ReplyDelete
"still being run by holdover Cowboys"ReplyDelete
har de har har
Where the arguments of the "peak oilers are crazy" crowd fall apart is:ReplyDelete
it matters, not, how much oil the world can produce at . . . pick a price . . . . but whether your economy can afford . . . . that price.
Our problem right now is that there is not enough oil for us, the OECD Nations, to grow while Chindia (China plus India) continues to grow.
And, they have shown/are showing that they can "outbid" us.
This problem shows all signs of getting steadily Worse, not better.Delete
Jeez-o-peet, this argument continues through the biggest recession we have seen in decades.
OECD vs. Chindia?
There is no one going without oil right now (except possibly in those countries that have to make the choice between oil and food like Egypt, but they would have that problem regardless.) If the OECD is not using as much oil as they have in the past, it's because of the recession that has been going on for four years, because of different usage patterns (less people driving or people driving less), new technology (better gas mileage, higher efficiency equipment), and the alternative energy growth you tell us about everyday.
How many in the OECD can't afford to compete with India for oil?
A hell of a lot of them. There are millions of U.S. and European citizens being constrained in their economic activity as a result of oil/gasoline prices.Delete
Do you honestly believe that a move from $1.00/gal gasoline to $4.00/gal gasoline won't leave a wide swath of economic destruction in its wake?Delete
It's a matter of "Marginal Utlity."Delete
The marginal utility of the last barrel of oil purchased in China is very, very high. In the U.S., not so much.
Think 6 guys in a jitney going to work, vs mom in SUV taking kid to soccer practice.
Of course it hurts. That's why people adapt.
The move from $1-$4? We've seen it already. Did it hurt? Sure. Was that the reason for any 'economic destruction'? Only if you listen to the 'economists' at Clean Technica.
As far as the OEDC being able to compete with India for oil. China is number 96 on the list of countries when ranked by GPD per capita. India is 135. I've got to run to the gym right now but when I get back, I'll check on how many OEDC countries fall behind them.
You avoid the precipitous increase in the price of crude from $ 112 to $ 80.Delete
Also the actual price adjusted for the wildly devalued US Dollar.
Let them swallow and enjoy the fruits of RufusWorld's Miracle Fiat Currency.
The "wildly devalued U.S. Dollar?"Delete
The Dollar is up 25% vs the Euro since the Low during the Bush Administration.
Live blog the Supreme Court today here -ReplyDelete
Nifty little clicking sound every time someone types something.
'F' word case may be decided too.
The Court holds that the FSA's new mandatory minimums applies to sentences for crack cocaine imposed after the Act for pre-Act crimes.
Surely this is wrong.
To reiterate, we don't know what the next opinion will be. It won't be from Justices Alito, Sotomayor, or Kagan, b/c the last opinion was from Justice Breyer.
Kinda interesting, that 'Amy' knows her stuff.
"F" word case is in!Delete
FCC v. Fox is in. Opinion is by Justice Kennedy. The decision of the Second Circuit is vacated and remanded.
The vote appears to be unanimous, although Justice Sotomayor did not participate, Ginsburg concurs in the judgment only.
Because the FCC failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcast that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity would be indecent, the Commission's standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague.
Because it resolves these cases under the due process clause, it does not involve the First Amendment implications or reconsider Pacifica at this time.
The decision is very narrow. The analysis section of the opinion is only 5 pages long. It says simply that the FCC didn't give advance notice. It doesn't decide the big questions of the constitutionality of the current policy.
That is all for today.
The Court has posted the FCC opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1293f3e5.pdf
No more opinions, according to Lyle. No health care coming today, no Arizona.
Our reader numbers just dropped quickly.
Well, I'm outta there. No more excitement today.
We will definitely be back on Monday for additional opinions; we will also have orders from the Court's conference today on Monday.
The Court has 4 decisions left, plus health care.
We'll start up the live blog sometime soon after 9am.
The fact that the Court did not announce that Monday will be the last day means there will definitely be opinions after Monday.
(Sorry, 5 plus health care.)
F WORD: FOX WINS OVER FCCReplyDelete
The debasement of our society continues.
Who is "Amy?"ReplyDelete
Hint for Max:ReplyDelete
The MOTIVATION was to defame gun dealers for arming the druglords, then ride the public outrage to infringe further on the 2nd Ammendment.
Exactly. And, what has happened is, people are so afraid now of all things Obama/Holder that never have gun sales been so robust, and the crime rate is dropping.Delete
You just got to love it!
Look how well that worked out.Delete
Please explain, including specific FACTUAL backup.Delete
(citations rather than slogans)
Amy seems to be the top blogger at that live blog the Supreme Court site. She knows her cases.ReplyDelete
It's a good thing I don't know how to use a web cam. I am hitting something like critical mass with the squirrels now. Yesterday we had four, today six. There is one fat ass I've identified as the alpha male. Though maybe he is just a lard ass.
Anyway, they are used to me. Except just now, when a big crow let out with some kind of warning caws, after misidentifying me as foe instead of friend, they all ran back up the trees.
Cute little critters, I'd live blog/web cam them for you if I could, and drive you to tears.
They don't seem interesting in the Supreme Court, or the war on drugs.
And, certainly not ethanol, or the theory of Peak Oil.
Yeah, well, when You learn to live on nuts, and sleep in trees you won't have to worry about those things either.Delete
But, in the meantime . . . .
Reading further about the Fox v FCC case, it seems it was about fines, not content, that was ruled upon, was unanimous and a narrowly worded decision. So FCC seems to be able to make some rules about content still.ReplyDelete
When health care is being paid for by public means (taxation), there is no other possible course but the rationing of limited resources. This rationing of resources will, inevitably, lead to end of life decisions that make most of us cringe. By the way, these end of life decisions are not reserved exclusively for the elderly. They are also in prospect for those who are deemed by the bureaucratic intelligentsia to have a less than stellar quality of life from some type of birth defect or other malady.
That which most of us object to in these decisions is that they are not made between the family and their physicians, but by unkown and unaccountable bureaucrats whose only criterion is the dollars involved.
If you want to avoid this inevitable outcome, you must resist publicly funded healthcare in any and all forms. Period.
Today 10:13 AM
Progressive liberal socialists have no problem killing fetuses and old people, they just lack the guts to kill convicted murderers. You see, fetuses and the elderly are not seen as human by the elitists because they are not personified, but murderers are celebrated in the media with a backstory that tugs at the heartstrings with notions that it's the fault of someone else for their being that way. It's a lot easier to kill someone without a personality, especially if that someone is making your life difficult by being an unwanted and inconvenient pregnancy or an old person viewed as having nothing left to offer to society and just a burden on the taxpayers. Fetuses and old people aren't viewed as sexy or charming, therefore they aren't needed and have to be shuffled off the stage so the beautiful people won't be inconvenienced. Death panels all seem so rational, until you're the one under their review! Socialized medicine is an institution that Britain can keep because I don't want any part of it.
Today 08:45 AM
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/socialized_medicine_in_uk_uses_death_pathway_for_inconvenient_elderly_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1yRnA5Dhf
The Soylant Green Solution
Hey Bob, put your thinking cap on. There must be some way of getting a good chunk of ethanol out of this.
Use corn farmers in the product?Delete
"Things aren’t so good in the U.S. either, especially in the public sector, where pension costs are eating governments alive. Young police officers and firefighters can’t get hired because older police officers and firefighters got pension deals that turned out to be unaffordable. But in a country where nearly half of all families now receive some form of government benefit, reform will be extremely hard.ReplyDelete
No wonder young people have taken to the streets in protest. Who can blame them? The boomers have screwed it up so badly that there’s nothing left for them. The trouble is that they are protesting against their own best interests. They should forget about the Occupy movement – and join the Tea Party.
So argues Niall Ferguson, the reliably provocative economic historian. In a new lecture series launched this week in Britain, he argues that the real crisis of Western democracy isn’t rapacious bankers, rampant capitalism or inequality, it’s massive public debt – debt that “allows the current generation of voters to live at the expense of those as yet too young to vote or as yet unborn.” Our staggering levels of public debt are a fundamental betrayal of the young by the old. If we really cared about the young, we’d pay off these debts as soon as possible.
The situation is much worse than we think, because the official debts of nations don’t include the enormous unfunded liabilities of welfare schemes such as old-age pensions and medicare – entitlements that overwhelmingly benefit the old. If corporations published figures this misleading, Mr. Ferguson contends, we’d throw the executives in jail for fraud.
The numbers are frightening. In the U.S., the gap between future federal government obligations and future revenues has reached an estimated $200-trillion – nearly 13 times the official debt. The unfunded liabilities of state and local governments amount to another $38-trillion. Unless these debts are curtailed, the next generation faces a bleak future of much higher taxes along with drastic cuts in other forms of public expenditure."
Ferguson is a fraud, and an idiot. I've been hearing the same nonsense since I was old enough to jerk off. We have a fiat currency. The reason we have a fiat currency is so we can run up debts, and inflate them away. I'm sure I could explain that concept to a mildly retarded 7th grader.Delete
If corporations published figures this misleading, Mr. Ferguson contends, we’d throw the executives in jail for fraud.Delete
Really? I was wondering what it would take.
I guess the older you get, the less innocent the blood.
rufus, there is a limit to the wonders of the printing press.Delete
"the same nonsense"Delete
refers to the quaint notion that a promise to provide a benefit actually carries some responsibility to provide it at a later date.
In Rufusworld tm, mere nonsense.
...he can explain.
Additionally, student loans dwarf all other forms of private debt:
Almost every freedom of choice I enjoyed during my life would have been eliminated had I entered the adult World with such an anchor.
A massive fraud and assault on individual freedom.
Ash Thu Jun 21, 02:15:00 PM EDT:Delete
"rufus, there is a limit to the wonders of the printing press."
Not to true believers in the notion that the term "Ponzi Scheme" is a mere fabrication to delude the masses.
Welcome to RufusWorld.
Rufusworld is based on "History," not on juvenile, Am Thinker rants.Delete
Only a selected reading of historyDelete
At first, police say, 70-year-old Kathleen Mcewan appeared to have died of natural causes when they arrived at her apartment in Philadelphia's Roxborough section and oversaw transport of her body to a funeral home.ReplyDelete
But funeral workers at the John J. Bryers Funeral Home in Willow Grove discovered something else the next day as they prepped Mcewan's body for embalming: up to 10 inches of rope stuffed down her throat, along with a candy wrapper.
As a result, Geraldine Cherry, 49, with an address listed at the same complex, was charged Wednesday night with murder and is being held without bail. There is no known motive.
The relationship between Cherry and Mcewan is unclear, as is whether they lived together in the same unit, or if Cherry worked there.
Philadelphia police say there was no reason to believe foul play when they first responded to a call June 10 that a woman had died at a group home on the 300 block of Parker Avenue. So Mcewan's body was taken directly to the funeral home.
Jeff Thompson, the funeral director, said nothing appeared amiss when he began readying the body for embalming. It was only when he and another staff member were doing the prep work on June 11 that they noticed the rope.
"I've done this for 20 some years, on thousands of people, and obviously I knew right away this didn't appear to be a natural cause of death," Thompson said. "We called the medical examiner."
Thompson described finding what he said was eight to 10 inches of cotton rope, similar to what might be used as a drawstring in pants or a hoodie, lodged deep in the throat. He also found a candy wrapper.
"It's a sad case," Thompson said.
A preliminary court hearing for Cherry is set for July 11.
No but I have heard of Son of Sam, Son of God, Child of Man, Hair of Dog, and Sons of Anarchy.ReplyDelete
Does that count?
(I am actually aware of the case, but whenever I see your name followed by one of 28 handy fuck this that or whatever, one eye closes; whenever I see the words "innocent blood", the other eye closes and I wait for the Gods of the Copybook Headings to bring you back to Jesus.)
Still waiting for any evidence that "Max" is aware of any FACTS regarding the history and character of Mr. Holder to lend any credence whatsoever to her facile recital of slogans provided by the left/MSM for repetition by zombie morons.Delete
You brought it up peckerwood.Delete
Take it on home.
Doug (short for Douglas)Delete
:) You're getting pretty good at this, Max.Delete
But, "Sons of Anarchy?"
What's a nice girl . . . . . ?
Release for my Inner Outlaw.Delete
I'm wondering if these volatile temper tantrums are moving the markets.
About as much as they were in Sept, '29, I suppose.Delete
Or, Sept of '08.Delete
I haven't heard the term peckerwood since I was called thus by Miss T 4 years ago.Delete
Very, very good.
I used it a lot in high school.
I'd be glad to share epitaphs with you, if you need an upgrade.
RE: unfunded liabilities and contractsReplyDelete
Apparently there are two arguments:
1. Unfunded liabilities are not contracts, and
2. Unfunded liabilities are contractual obligations, but ones which may be modified under specific circumstances:
• A state may impair a contractual right if it has a significant and legitimate public purpose such as remedying a broad and general social or economic problem, such as elimination of unforeseen windfall profits.
• A state may do so as an exercise of its police power.
• A contractual impairment may be constitutional if it is reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose.
All of which is little more than an intellectual exercise in interpreting case law.
Americans understand the argument for SS reform (the operative word) and agree to the general outline of phasing in a retirement age.
Medicare is the 'unfunded liability' problem. One the Democrats tried to fix. One the Democrats understand will take more work.
As will civil service pensions.
The college kids can eat cake. I'll send Holder a sympathy card before I worry about them.
Social Security is not a contractual obligation of the Federal government.Delete
It is a welfare program.
Medicare is not a contractual obligation of the Federal government.
It is a welfare program.
This was decided, as a legal issue, by the SCOTUS in the landmark case "Flemming V. Nestor".
ARGUED FEBRUARY 24, 1960. - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1960.
Flemming v Nestor ruled that SS benefits were not property, nor an 'earned right' in the legal contractual sense, which allowed the US to deny said rights to a claimant thought to be a communist.
Early opposition to the Flemming v Nestor ruling came from Hugo Black:
Once in the Senate Hugo Black was a tenacious foe of corruption, an advocate for the common man (the consumer, the farmer, the factory worker), and a reliable supporter of New Deal legislation, including the Social Security Act of 1935.83 In fact, his personal papers are filled with correspondence from constituents about the Act—how it worked; whether they or their family members could benefit. Sincere letter writers detailed their personal situations and asked for their senator's opinion.84 Black likely told them the same thing that New Deal designers and administrators said: Social Security was insurance for the working man, earned by the individual and merely administered by the federal government.
Last, Black invoked the very real expectations that Social Security created. "People who pay premiums for insurance usually think they are paying for insurance," Justice Black wrote. They pay for security, not for the "flexibility and boldness" that the majority cited. Congress could deny coverage to new people or refuse to increase its obligations to existing beneficiaries, "[b]ut that is quite different from disappointing the just expectations of the contributors to the fund which the Government has compelled them and their employers to pay its Treasury."90 Justice Black denigrated the standard of review that the majority applied to such a flagrant act of dispossession. It amounted to no review at all.91
"The End of Insurance and the [Beginning] of 'New Property:'"
The term "welfare state" entered the American lexicon in the late 1940s, when opponents of Truman's "Fair Deal" attempted to portray the program as a corruptor of American individualism and a communist plot. ... Reich's "The New Property" married these concerns about the nature of the welfare state with the civil liberties questions raised by McCarthyism.
The fact that the government could take this "property" away suggested a feudal order, Reich said, in which "[w]ealth is not 'owned,' or 'vested' in the holders" but rather "held conditionally" and subject to "the fulfillment of obligations imposed by the state."126 This "new feudalism" should disturb all Americans, he argued, because it eroded the essence of American national character: individualism and independence.127 The Social Security pension system, for example, ostensibly "assur[ed] old people a stable, dignified, and independent basis of retirement," consonant with American social values. Yet in Nestor "Congress and the Supreme Court jeopardized all these values to serve a public policy both trivial and vindictive—the punishment of a few persons for Communist Party membership now long past."128 A "feudal philosophy of largess and tenure may well be characteristic of collective societies," like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, but it was not the American way.129
Then began the public hearings:
Goldberg also appeared to catalyze a "due process explosion" in which the Court "carried the hearing requirement from one new area of government action to another."140 ... By 1975, Judge Friendly famously wondered "whether government can do anything to a citizen without affording him 'some kind of hearing.'"142
Which later went away:
The answer, it turned out, was "yes." By the following year, the Supreme Court held in Mathews v. Eldridge that the federal government did not have to provide an evidentiary hearing before terminating a person's Social Security disability benefits. This decision also inaugurated a "balancing test" for due process cases, in which the Court weighed the so-called "private interest" against "the Government's interest," including the fiscal and administrative burdens that greater procedural protections would entail.143 Although this approach continued to acknowledge the valuable interests that the welfare state created, it took the magic out of the word "property." Whether a government benefit was "property" or not became curiously irrelevant.
Leaving us today with:
In the end, then, "The New Property" did not lead to a revolution in constitutional law, nor did it result in greater security for most clients of the nation's social welfare programs. Reich himself eventually acknowledged that "the moderate, due process, cost-benefit approach" of "The New Property" "must surely be deemed a failure" because "it does not work."144 Yet in at least one way it succeeded beyond Reich's expectations: drawing on cases like Nestor, "The New Property" called attention to the tensions inherent in a state that guaranteed both social security and domestic security; it vividly illustrated the connections between the nation's most progressive impulses and its darkest. These are observations that haunted other intellectuals of the post-war period and that haunt us still today.
So where are we?
Pretty much right back where I said:
The broad outlines of SS reform necessary to contain the "unfunded liability" to manageable levels have been detailed and can be sold to the public with leadership. That economic problem goes away, but the intellectuals remain haunted.
Medicaid is not unmanageable.
Medicare is a problem. One that the Democrats tried to fix. It needs some more thought.
Pensions can be scaled back and the college grads can pound some pavement.
The tension between individual liberty and collective security will continue to haunt the nail-biting intellectuals.
There's been a lot of talk about the benefits of privatization lately—particularly from Mitt Romney, who has appeared sympathetic to those who'd privatize Medicare, veterans' health care, and even public schools, via vouchers. "Birds do it. Bees do it. Even Harvard PhD’s do it," quips Gail Collins in the New York Times. "Let's do it. Let's privatize." But she wants to clear up the matter: Privatization can be disastrous. As New Jersey privatizes parts of its prison system, 5,000 prisoners "have run, walked or wandered off since 2005."ReplyDelete
"The hottest new wrinkle for private companies eager to tap into public school funding is charter cyberschools"—but only about 25% such institutions have reached federal academic benchmarks, says one study. Meanwhile, privatization linked to employee timekeeping in New York "was supposed to have cost the city $63 million wound up with a slightly unsleek tab of $700 million." There are some industries that can benefit from going private, an expert tells Collins—for instance, "construction or food services," whose performance is easily measured. Go too far with privatization, though, and it's like "having mercenaries run your war for you." Click for the full piece.
Wel, let's think this through ...ReplyDelete
The United States was running a covert operation, along the frontier and in Mexico, to destabilize the status que of the local and regional governments in Mexico. Governments that are at least connected at the hip with the cartels.
An operation that was vital to US national security, just as it is operating covertly in Iran, Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan.
When the covert operations methods and processes in those fore mentioned areas of operation are leaked, the Bar squeals.
When the Administration attempts to maintain operational security of US operations in Mexico, a country of much greater strategic importance of any of those in the Middle East or Southwest Asia, the Bar squeals.
Seems that the Bar likes to squeal about the current Administration.
When they leak, it's treason, when they don't, it's treasonous, too.
As Mr Nixon said ...
"If the President does it, it is not illegal".
Executive Privilege Is 'Entirely AboutDelete
"The assembled reporters laughed."Delete
Were their lips moving?Delete
Come on, rat. As for squealing, if you have something good to say about Obama, let's hear it. Likewise, "the bar" just isn't that big, and I for one didn't complain about the leaking. I complained about the unconstitutionality of the actions taken by Obama that just happened to be leaked. I'm all for the leaks. It just shows how screwed up these guys are. The only thing that acts as any kind of bar on these guy's actions are embarrassment and public humiliation.
As for the leaking itself or the not leaking in the case of Holder, I could give a shit. It's all politics. There will be no resolution on the issues raised prior to the election. Afterwards, it will end up getting settled prior to reaching the Supreme Court as it always does.
This whole fubar situation will end up generating a lot of money for campaign contributions and TV ads but that’is about all.
SHARPTON: Holder 'Stopped And Frisked' by House...ReplyDelete
Carney Forgets Name of Slain Border Agent...ReplyDelete
Maybe he'll learn the names of all the dead Mexicans as penance.
Moody's Investors Service dealt a fresh blow to the financial sector, downgrading more than a dozen global banks to reflect declining profitability in an industry being rocked by soft economic growth, tougher regulations and nervous investors.ReplyDelete
The lower ratings are likely to raise the companies' borrowing costs and could deprive some banks of trading revenue.
In the event the Supreme Court does not put Obamacare out of our misery next week, Mitt Romney ought be ready to roll with the punches and come out at once with Plan B. Plan A was to have the Court sever it neatly with one swing of the axe, but there was always the possibility the Court would not follow the returns of the recent elections.ReplyDelete
And so, Romney ought to say this:
MY FELLOW AMERICANS: It is now up to us. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—which protects no one, and which will bankrupt the country—is not unconstitutional, but that does not mean it is good.
If fewer doctors, more costs, fewer new cures, and less care are the stuff of your fancies; if high unemployment is also your passion, and if a good culture war gets your blood racing; vote for our president, and you will see much more of them. If you don’t, now, it seems you have only one option: you can vote to replace him with me.
The question is, "What did Obama and Holder know about Fast and Furious and when did they know it?"ReplyDelete
Apparently, this is what Obama and Holder do not want to let the House know.
The agencies were criticised during the financial crisis for giving high ratings to various investment vehicles linked to subprime mortgages, and for giving similarly high ratings to banks that would have collapsed without state bailouts.ReplyDelete
Ratings used to be important because they fed through into how much any rated institution paid for borrowing money. However, lenders have increasingly taken their own view.
One banker said yesterday: "You have to look at this in context. The market will take its own view of a bank's creditworthiness, and what's going on in Europe is well known."
A few months back, The New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal rationalized Obama's abuse of executive power by deploying an age-old excuse for abuse: "Context and intent make all the difference." No, they make no difference.ReplyDelete
The left claims there is an unprecedented level of obstructionism in Washington (failing to note that perhaps there is an unprecedented level of terrible legislation in need of obstruction) that necessitates alternative methods. Hey, maybe some of us believe that "do nothing" Congresses are the most productive.
At the very least, Americans should be more comfortable with obstructionism than with executive unilateralism no matter what the outcome.
On this day in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled burning the American flag was protected by the First Amendment. Such an act is seen as a form of political protest and can’t be prosecuted.ReplyDelete