10 things to know today

Your daily look at late-breaking news, upcoming events and the stories that will be talked about Friday.
AP Wire
Aug 15, 2014

 

1. MISSOURI MOVES TO DEFUSE TENSION OVER KILLING OF UNARMED BLACK TEEN
 
The state Highway Patrol supplants the much-criticized local police in Ferguson, the St. Louis suburb roiled by protests since Saturday's shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a white officer.
 
2. AL-MALIKI STEPPING DOWN AS IRAQ'S PRIME MINISTER
 
His decision ends a political deadlock that has plunged the country into uncertainty as it fights a Sunni militant insurgency.
 
3. ROBIN WILLIAMS HAD PARKINSON'S DISEASE, WIFE SAYS
 
The diagnosis gave the comedian yet another challenge, along with depression, anxiety and his decades-long struggle to stay sober.
 
4. WHAT'S SUPRISING ABOUT POPE'S CHOICE OF WHEELS
 
Arriving in South Korea, the pontiff leaves the airport in a notably humble conveyance — a compact black Kia.
 
5. EBOLA OUTBREAK SHOWS NO SIGN OF EBBING
 
The World Health Organization agency says it is prepared for the crisis to continue for months.
 
6. AMISH GIRLS SAFE AFTER APPARENT ABDUCTION
 
The girls turned up 13 miles from where they disappeared from their family's upstate New York roadside farm stand, authorities say.
 
7. WHY EUROPE'S ECONOMY IS STILL STUTTERING
 
The bloc's leading members just aren't thriving. Germany's economy, for instance, shrank 0.2 percent last quarter.
 
8. MUCH OF GLACIAL MELTING MAN-MADE
 
More than two-thirds of the rapid melt of the world's glaciers can be blamed on humans, a study determines.
 
9. DAVID GREGORY DEPARTING NBC'S 'MEET THE PRESS'
 
During his tenure, the venerable Sunday morning show dropped from first place to third in the ratings. Gregory will be replaced by Chuck Todd.
 
10. WHO'S FOLLOWING BUD SELIG AS BASEBALL COMMISSIONER
 
His second-in-command, Rob Manfred, is elected by team owners to take over when Selig retires in January.

Comments

Vladtheimp

#1. WHILE OBAMA CLAIMS MORAL EQUIVALENCY BETWEEN RIOTERS, LOOTERS, MOLOTOV COCKTAIL THROWERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT WHILE FEDERALIZING A LOCAL ISSUE

"The executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police criticized President Obama Thursday for his remarks about law enforcement in Ferguson, Mo.

"I would contend that discussing police tactics from Martha's Vineyard is not helpful to ultimately calming the situation," director Jim Pasco said in an interview with The Hill."

""I'm not there, and neither is the president," Pasco said. "That is why we have due process in the United States. And this will all be sorted out over time. But right now, I haven't seen anything from afar — and maybe the president has — that would lead me to believe the police are doing anything except to restore order." http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-br...

#1. MEANWHILE, IT'S "BUSINESS" AS USUAL

Obama traveled from his vacation home to the Edgartown School to give his statement--a location that was less than three miles from the golf course.

Late for his 12:15 p.m. scheduled press appearance, he arrived at the school at 12:44 p.m. and finished speaking at about 12:58 p.m. He did not take questions from reporters.

The President left the school at 1:00 p.m. and arrived at the Vineyard Golf Club in Edgartown by 1:04." http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Gov...

(In 2014, Obama has been late by more than 35 hours - "Obama has been a cumulative 2,121 minutes late to events in 2014. That's 35 hours, 21 minutes -- or almost a day and a half -- that his audiences have been waiting for him to speak." http://www.washingtonpost.com/bl...

Lanivan

Fraternal Order of Police Jim Pasco quote: "But right now, I haven't seen anything from afar — and maybe the president has — that would lead me to believe the police are doing anything except to restore order." http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-br."

This is what Jim Pasco saw:

"All this week people were shocked to see police officers dressed up in what one wag called “commando-chic” pointing guns directly at unarmed civilians. They were taken aback at the idea that heavily armed officers wearing desert battle fatigues would enter a McDonald’s where children were present to roust the customers and arrest reporters who were sitting quietly charging their laptops. They saw the unmotivated discharge of tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters. They wondered why there were tanks and automatic weapons in our streets. Well, it’s a long overdue wake-up call. We’ve been spending billions of taxpayer dollars for decades to turn the streets of urban America into a war zone at the merest hint of dissent. And now it’s here." http://www.salon.com/2014/08/15/...

THIS is the corruption of moral equivalency.

Lanivan

1.) Ferguson, MO is just the tip of the iceberg of the militarization of local police officers, who are sworn by oath to protect and serve the public, not beat, intimidate, and kill them. Since the early 1990's, with a steroid injection after 9/11 and the creation of the huge new expensive program, Homeland Security, local law enforcement has quietly been provided with advanced military equipment, which has given rise to the Warrior Cop. A fear of terrorists has led to a fear of citizens in general.

Couple this with the rise in power and control of the NRA with Federal and State politicians, the vast gun and weapons manufacturers that the NRA serves as lobbyists, states that are seeking to pass all the more lax gun legislation, such as in Missouri, and a permanent underclass with no social mobility, and you get Ferguson.

Ferguson, MO has a population of 67% African-American, but the City Council has five white members, with just one black member. The local police force has three black officers among 53 officers. Ferguson is a suburb of St. Louis that has a large permanent underclass with no prospects of social mobility, a segment of society that is growing more desperate daily with the explosion in wealth and income disparity.

Missouri has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. http://gun.laws.com/state-gun-la...

When the police begin to routinely violate citizens' 1st Amendment rights to assemble and peacefully protest, arrest and assault journalists who are present only to report, and believe that protestors are getting what they had coming, all armed with massive amounts of heavy military equipment, in a state that has some of the most lax gun laws in the country, what is the clear and present danger?

The Obama administration - who many of these people truly believed was going to confiscate all guns upon taking office, gutting their 2nd Amendment rights, or the rise of a right-wing, Warrior Cop, pro-open carry everywhere for anybody, Wild West, shoot-em-up military/gun industry dictatorship?

Barry Soetoro

Don't worry, L - when the MRAP's roll up to your garage while the Summit is in progress, Jim Bob C. (fka Barry S.) has got your back. Then we will talk about why the "domestic terrorists" stockpile the things they do.

JBC

Lanivan

I don't know quite how to respond. If by "got your back", you mean you would be bringing a gun to a beer summit in my garage, I don't think it will be necessary. I cleaned up the birdseed mess, storing it in a tank-like storage bin that neither man nor beast could chew their way into, and the critter(s) are now gone, so no need to fire away on that score.

Barry Soetoro

Never say never, Lani. Just when I think I'm ahead of the game versus the rodents and critters, some bionic s.o.b. finds their way in to whatever I'm trying to keep them out of. Never fails.

Lanivan

Ha! Sometimes I'm my own worst enemy....Dismayed at all the chipmunk holes being dug in my flower beds, I set out a live trap, intending to catch all sorts of chippies. I got a mole, a vole, and the cutest mouse ever that, I swear to God, smiled at me as if thanking me for the nice peanut I put in the trap. I just let him go free.....and no chipmunks whatsoever.

Harry Kovaire

I just saw this headline and thought of you.

When Stupid and Evil Reign, It's Good to Own a Gun

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBl...

echo5oscar

What equipment should they not have? Should they go out and quell a riot without protection? If they broke up a peaceful demonstration, then they overstepped their bounds. However, in the previous days, the demonstrations started out peaceful, and morphed into riots. I would be on edge too.

Lanivan

Please read link in post below.

Vladtheimp

Like MM, a dialogue with a left wing zealot is impossible. Conservatives have fought against big government, which made this militarization possible, while liberals have embraced it, yet all Lanivan can rant about is the NRA, Second Amendment rights, "right wing Warrior Cops, and other nonsense that has nothing to do with the 1033 program.

Looters, rioters, arsonists, molotov cocktail assailants are given a free pass, and racial animosity is stirred up - for the purpose of getting Blacks out to vote in the midterms, the same purpose of Obama and Holder. A moral equivalency is asserted between the rioting felons and the police who are attempting to protect law abiding citizens and their property. This is a disgusting tactic that should be denounced by every American, regardless of their race.

Some inconvenient facts - the militarization of local police forces by providing them with surplus military equipment, including firearms and military vehicles, was first authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act of 1989, H.R. 2461, Section 1208 of Public Law 101-189 - Nov. 29, 1989. The sponsor of this bill was Rep. Les Aspin, progressive of Wisconsin. At that time, both the House and the Senate were controlled by Democrats, and liberals like Chris Dodd and Uncle Joe Biden voted in favor of the bill. It has since been re-authorized several times by both Democrat and Republican Congresses. While many Conservatives have expressed concerns about this militarization of the local police, as have many liberals, including the ACLU, I don't recall Obama, Hillary, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid uttering one peep about it until Ferguson, which represented a "crisis" which they could not let go to waste politically.

Obama has acted lawlessly on so many occasions it's difficult to enumerate them - maybe some time in the future some historian will explore whether his supporters take a page from his book - "if the President can ignore the law, why can't I?" and its impact on public safety. In any event, if he can ignore his own Healthcare (Health Insurance) law, if he can ignore Immigration Laws, if he can ignore DOMA, certainly he can find a basis for one of his "executive actions" stopping the transfer of military equipment from the Pentagon to local police, since he is, as he constantly reminds us when something goes right, Commander in Chief.

I take especial umbrage with your libel of law enforcement officers as "Right Wing Warrior" Cops - I represented Police Officers and had many friends in law enforcement; I have a close relative who was a local police officer who is now a federal law enforcement officer, and they do not resemble the caricature you paint of them. I guarandamtee you will be happy to have people standing between you and the felonious among us, protecting your life, and your property, and carrying a weapon produced by the gun industry. You blithely speak of a dictatorship at the same time you worship at the feet of a President that ignores the Constitution, threatens to act on his own if the elected representatives of the people don't sign on to his Left Wing Socialist agenda, and makes an as* of himself by sticking his nose into local matters without knowing the facts? If you're worried about the militarization of local police, you should be worried about the Federalization of every local matter that Obama and Holder want to take over and control.

Vladtheimp

#1. Ferguson police call Michael Brown a robbery suspect, identify Darren Wilson as officer who shot him

"The documents related to an alleged robbery at a convenience store that took place prior to the shooting.

According to the report, Ferguson police officers received a call at 11:51 a.m. about a robbery in progress at a convenience store and were given the description of a suspect.

The suspect was described as a black male in a white T-shirt walking north toward a QuickTrip convenience store.

“I did not see the suspect in the area,” the officer wrote in the report.

The officer wrote that the store clerk got the description of the suspect as wearing a white T-shirt, khaki shorts, yellow socks and a red St. Louis Cardinals baseball cap. The officer was also told that another black male was with him."http://www.washingtonpost.com/ne...

Pictures at link. Google "Swisher Sweets" to see their main claim to fame. . . .

Lanivan

Vlad - I'm looking at the larger picture and long-term trend in the militarization of law enforcement; race relations; the rise in the power of the NRA and it's domination of Federal and State legislatures; Big Government in the form of Homeland Security;, and the causal effects that created the culture of, converged on, and exploded in, Ferguson, MO - a state that is being radicalized by hard right wing legislation that allows nearly everyone to carry a gun anywhere, at any time, without necessary permits, background checks, or nearly any regulation at all.

Interesting that you taunt Obama to sidestep Congress and execute an EO to stop the transfer of military equipment to police departments. Are you being prescient, surmising Congress will not be able to pass legislation to address this issue, just as they have done, for the last several years, with nearly every other serious segment of American society that requires and deserves time, attention, and the discussion of possibilities to reform and improve?

With a repetition that at this point smacks of more a rhetorical device than a belief, you blame Obama, and Holder (and me!?). This, once again, dilutes and distorts your argument. Morphing local law enforcement into soldiers of war is not a new program under Obama, nor has he explicitly encouraged or promoted it; it,in fact, dates back further than your 1989 - to the '60's. This is another one of those complex issues that requires one to step back from current prejudices and take a good look at the big picture. It doesn't help, as a staunch conservative that you claim to be, to immediately fall back and behind the liberal/Obama/leftist/socialist rant - although it may make you feel better and attract attention.

This is the best article I've found on the topic: "The most striking photographs from Ferguson, Missouri, aren’t of Saturday’s demonstrations or Sunday night’s riots; they’re of the police. Image after image shows officers clad in Kevlar vests, helmets, and camouflage, armed with pistols, shotguns, automatic rifles, and tear gas. In one photo, protesters stand toe-to-toe with baton-wielding riot police, in another, an unarmed man faces several cops, each with rifles at the ready.

In his book The Rise of the Warrior Cop, journalist Radley Balko notes that since the 1960s, “law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M–16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield.

This process ramped up with the “war on drugs” in the 1980s and 1990s, as the federal government supplied local and state police forces with military-grade weaponry to clamp down on drug trafficking and other crime. And it accelerated again after the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when the federal government had—and sent—billions in surplus military equipment to state and local governments. Since 2006, according to an analysis by the New York Times, police departments have acquired 435 armored vehicles, 533 planes, 93,763 machine guns, and 432 mine-resistant armored trucks."

http://www.slate.com/articles/ne...

To address your especial umbrage, please don't go to all that trouble on my account. I, too, have relatives and friends who are police officers, country sheriffs, forensic specialists, are on swat teams, and work for the FBI and CIA. I have always written in this forum with a tone of respect for people in law enforcement and the military. But I am also aware that they are only human, and there are many instances of police abuse and brutality, poor police management, and societal influences and pressures on police culture that make the term "warrior cop", unfortunately, appropriate.

Vladtheimp

Let's not lose sight of the major issue - that Big Government, as created, nurtured, and grown by liberals, is the major cause of the militarization of the police.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that YOU attempted to tie the riots in Ferguson and the police response to the NRA, lax gun control, and the "right wing" when it was really about two thugs who stole merchandise from a convenience store while roughing up the minority owner and had a subsequent confrontation with the police; about minority and left wing looters, arsonists, police haters from outside of Ferguson (and outside of Missouri) taking the opportunity to break the law, and the police attempts to defend the citizens of Ferguson and their property from these felons (who just last night looted the store that the media described "Gentle Giant who was innocence personified) had robbed and terrorized two nights before.

It is inescapable that Big Government has made the militarization of the police possible. Your quoted author Randy Balko has stated such:

"Balko argues that state and local governments probably would not have militarized their police to anything like the same degree if they had had to pay for it all themselves. The federal government also promotes police militarization by enabling local police to keep large amounts of property seized in drug raids through asset forfeitures, often even if the owners of the property were never convicted of any crime. In this way, militarized police units subsidized by federal funding can become a cash cow for their departments."

Balko has also noted, unlike the Progressive philosophy, that:

"The founding fathers understood that every right we have emanates from our right to private property. In this sense, “private property” means not only the right to one’s home and land, but also the right to own the product of one’s labor. James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in 1789, “A man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” Every right we have stems from government’s recognition that we, the people, are born with our rights intact. We own them. We have property in them. We voluntarily forfeit some of these rights to government, in exchange for protection from outside threats, the administration of justice, and the rule of law. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution, then, is not to tell us what rights we have.

The Second Amendment has been trampled by gun control legislation. In our nation’s capital, for example, guns of any kind have been all but outlawed."

It's a nice arabesque to allege " I have always written in this forum with a tone of respect for people in law enforcement" after just having alleged that:

Police "are sworn by oath to protect and serve the public, not beat, intimidate, and kill them." and

Police "routinely violate citizens' 1st Amendment rights to assemble and peacefully protest, arrest and assault journalists who are present only to report, and believe that protestors are getting what they had coming,"

I would hate to see what you would write about people for whom you have no respect.

Balko did not call the police "Right wing" Warrior Cops - that was you adding your progressive descriptor to the title of his book.

Finally, regarding the police and citizens of Ferguson, you might do some research into the change in the racial demographics since the 90's when the police officers were hired; you might check what the police chief has said about his attempts to diversify his force.

You also might consider what political party has made those citizens a "permanent underclass" (Hint - it's the party they support with roughly 90% of their vote.

Harry Kovaire

I think you and Lanivan are both "looking at the larger picture", but your arguments are merely differences of target, perspective and talent.

When asked to describe the world, you stand back and look at the "larger picture" of the world and see a big blue ball floating in the emptiness of space. http://bigblueball.org/

But when you get close up, you see all the gritty details. http://gigapan.com/ Even something as beautiful as Obama's Inauguration is sullied by George W. Bush's Cassandrian expression that says "this won't turn out well" when looked at too closely. http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/...

On the other hand, Lanivan's "larger picture" is a Jackson Pollock painting. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_B_kPS4...

When you stand back, it looks like a bunch of paint slung on a canvas. But when you get up close, you realize well... it's just a bunch of paint slung on a canvas.

Indeed, Lanivan's writing appears to use many of Pollock's innovative techniques:

* Painted horizontally, on the floor http://jennymackness.files.wordp...

* Used sticks instead of traditional artist's materials

* Works intuitively with an automatist technique - whereby the usual intellectual control of the artist over the brush is foregone. The artist's aim is to allow the subconscious to create the artwork without rational reference.

* Considers space in a completely new way

* Rejects Renaissance perspective

* Painted gestures move across the picture plane instead of attempting the illusion of moving through it - The painter becomes the painting's subject

* "He transformed the obligation for social relevance, a pervasive current between the wars, into an unrelenting moral commitment to a search for the self."

Lanivan

Now I'm impressed.

This is brilliant on so many levels - the blending of the blue ball, viewed from space, with Jackson Pollock, whose action painting was all about standing above the canvas, pushing, pulling (tides?), involving time, motion, texture and pattern - elemental and exhilarating, free from easels and repressed movement. Total abandon and freedom, with the process of getting there being the point, rather than the finished creation - if there really is an "end" to his canvas.

I appreciate your presentation of snark and sarcasm wrapped in this most wonderful of metaphors, even though, frankly, you are not successful in it's execution or summation of Lanivan. But it does demonstrate a sense of humor that has been lacking in your posts, and for that, I am grateful.

And how in the he11 did you know I did a paper on Jackson Pollack in 1974, choosing him because at the time he made no sense to me, as far as modern American painters I favored Mary Cassat and Ben Shahn, it was suggested at the time I needed the discipline required to write the paper?

Barry Soetoro

I always liked Bob Ross.

Lanivan

I can respect that. As you might expect, there's a t-shirt for that....

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/7584...

Vladtheimp

Great job Harry, I think you have it about right (no pun intended). Notwithstanding the objections of Lanivan, I think it very courtly of you not to have included the analysis of Clement Greenberg, who supported Pollock's work because it fit well with Greenberg's view of art history as a progressive purification in form and elimination of historical content.

Harry Kovaire

I omitted Greenberg because I think his views are about as sound as Rolf Anderberg's analysis of Pierre Brassau.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/in...

"...brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness..."

Give a monkey paint and he will sling that.

Lanivan

Nice cut and paste. Either that or LessThanAmused was correct in his assessment that you were a raging liberal in your youth, spending hours every weekend at MoMA and listening to Cab Calloway.

Lanivan

Tying together Big Government, Liberals, and the militarization of police is not the slam dunk you portray it to be. The militarization of local law enforcement, although trending in the '60's, really took off in the '80's during the Reagan administration's "War on Drugs", which is widely held to be a disastrous failure. But then again, Big Government grew exponentially under Reagan, along with the Federal Debt and Deficit. So I give you points on that one.

Republicans and Liberals are pretty much tied for blame on the continuing march to militarization. Liberals embraced it for fear of looking soft on the "War on Crime", and Republicans took advantage of it. Like everything in American Society, it seems that 9/11 was a motivator behind the explosion in turning cops into soldiers to advance the "War on Terror".

It's always a "War", and that's where the military/NRA-gun mnfcs/industrial complex has brilliantly taken over the paradigm, the mentality, the propaganda, the expectation, and the profits. We're left with heavily-armed, para-military policemen, many of whom are poorly-trained.

I've been pretty clear on expressing my belief that the right wing influence is a major factor in both the present culture of the state of Missouri, and the town of Ferguson, and is perhaps the match that lit the fuse. When a white officer allegedly unloads at least one round of bullets into an unarmed, jaywalking young black man, who falls dead 35 feet from the officers car, and is left to lay there bleeding for four hours - no ambulance called, no attempt to resuscitate - those cultural, localized resentments must surface, this time in the protests.

I don't have much faith in the Ferguson police chief thus far. The manner in which he has handled the whole ordeal, the withholding of information for 6 days, the assault and arrest of journalists, timing of the release of the video and name of the officer, the very apparent desire to remove the onus from the officer and police force, and pivot to Michael Brown as a shoplifter, does not sit well with me.

Balko's term, "Warrior Cop", is particularly fitting and appropriate, especially in the case of Ferguson. While I understand that both political parties have blame, it's the right wing emphasis on polarization, racist violence, and the propaganda of "War" that has been the darkest force. And it is a product, a spawn, a puppet, and an enabler, of Big Government.

Vladtheimp

Color me unsurprised that just like your paramour, Obama, you choose to blame every of society's ills on someone other than liberals, this time the good old reliable Ronald Reagan, not to mention poo-pooing the very real concerns of most Americans immediately post 9-11.

Color me similarly unsurprised that you describe this strong arm robber, gang sign showing, yoot as just a jaywalker, blaming the law enforcement officer without knowing any of the facts surrounding the shooting.

My guess is, when the facts come out unvarnished by the liberal media, the racial extortionists, and the family and their Trayvon lawyer, you will be just as surprised as you were to find that he and his accomplice had just knocked off a convenience store and assaulted the minority owner before they confronted the police officer.

I trust you noted that the governor of Missouri appointed a black state police officer (more on that another time) to take over in Ferguson; that the police then pulled back and watched as hoards of unarmed jawalkers burned and looted private businesses, including the business that the giant unarmed jaywalker had knocked off. How dare a private business owner call 911 to complain about a minority yoot stealing from his store and roughing him up - the nerve!

Lanivan

You paint an indistinct picture of the events of the last week in Ferguson. I hardly think an 18-year old kid who allegedly stole a case of Swisher Sweets, should be gunned down in the middle of the street as punishment by an officer who didn't even know about the shoplifting.

The local residents who make up the majority of protestors are not the ones looting. The looters should be arrested and prosecuted. The peaceful demonstrators should not be kept in line with armed vehicles, tear gas, and assault weapons pointed at them.

The black state police officer brought in to calm the crowds did just that; it was the re-emergence of local military force that riled everybody again.

But I do give you a partial pass for your biased perspective, knowing your history of protecting yourself and others, in the midst of violent race riots, and how current episodes must elicit many memories.

Harry Kovaire

Who started the whole "War on ______" to get support for Big Government programs? I thought it was LBJ.

Now the administration of Food Stamps requires military weapons.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/1...

Lanivan

That's easy. George Orwell in 1949 - WAR is peace.

Uh, you might want to batten down the hatches when Vlad gets sight of your link, what with it's explicit blaming of Republicans for the "War on Federal Largesse Recipient Corruption"....So how did an internal government watchdog turn into an external projection of U.S. power against its own citizens? Because of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which amended the IG Act to grant inspectors "full law enforcement authority to carry firearms, make arrests and execute search warrants." The law was sponsored by then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), passed with a heavily Republican majority (207-10 in favor, versus 88-110 among Democrats), passed overwhelmingly in the Senate (90-9, with no Republicans voting against), and then signed into law by President George W. Bush. The blunt truth is that after 9/11, a vast majority of elected conservatives want to arm the bejeebus out of the feds, with little or no deliberation about long-term consequences.

If Republicans now belatedly loathe the creation of dozens of new police units within the federal government, here is what they can do about it: Draft a bill reversing the 2002 amendment to the IG Act, and then pass it.

Harry Kovaire

You mean like this bill introduced over a month ago?

The Regulatory Agency De-militarization (RAD) Act (H.R. 4934) was introduced by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) and is co-sponsored by over twenty House Republicans.

An internal government watchdog turned into an external projection of U.S. power against its own citizens because of the very nature of Big Government. They take a little power and abuse it. It is the nature of power and man - the reason why our founding is based on the concept of limited government.

If Liberals now belatedly loathe the creation of dozens of new police units within the federal government, here is what they can do about it: call you representatives in Congress and tell them to support H.R. 4934 and STOP SUPPORTING UNLIMITED GOVERNMENT GROWTH.

Lanivan

I've just done a little research into RAD HR4934, and I can't find anywhere that this proposal is supported by the NRA, and I doubt I will. The NRA and its gun/ammo manufacturers really scored with the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (not to mention of two wars and the years of customer service they enjoyed), after which the extreme militarization of the Federal government really took off, as did the profits of the military equipment manufacturers.

The fact that the bill strips the federal inspector generals of arrest and firearm authority is a little unsettling, but it appears that the bill has about a 3% chance of being enacted. But with Ferguson on the minds of the country, maybe the chances will improve.

As for stopping unlimited government growth, I've been concerned about this for some time, particularly with the hundreds of bills regarding women's reproductive and general health choices that meddle with established rights, the vast number of voter suppression laws that restrict voting options and take away voting rights from many via those restrictions.

And then there are the states passing very lax gun laws. For example, the new Georgia gun law and expansion of the Stand Your Ground law that allows a felon who is not permitted to have a weapon could use a weapon in defense of his home and not be charged for having a weapon.

Unlimited government legislation at work.

Harry Kovaire

You apparently have no interest in finding honest answers to the questions society faces.

In your prior post, you demand the Republicans "draft a bill reversing the 2002 amendment to the IG Act" as a display of their seriousness.

When I point out that they did, you find it "unsettling" that the bill reverses the 2002 amendment to the IG Act.

Stay Cute.

Pages

 

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.