Ken White writes at www.popehat.com:
Blabblermouth thinks Ken White is peeking through a peep hole at the tip of an iceberg. It is my opinion that government officials (especially elected officals) lie whenever they think it might be convenient, exicting or even just fun.
- Governments lie about the scope of their surveillance measures against us.
- Governments say that what they are doing in the war on terrorism needs to be secret, but governments have an established record of lying about their need for secrecy.
- When governments say that they are using their powers to fight terrorists, government are lying. Government actually use their expanded powers to pursue whatever they want, ...
It is a federal crime to lie to government officials. It should be a crime for federal officials to lie, even if their wives ask "Do these pants make me look fat ?"Last week, President Obama misled the public when he told comedian Jay Leno that protected legal channels exist that Edward Snowden could have used to challenge government misconduct:
I can tell you that there are ways, if you think that the government is abusing a program, of coming forward. In fact, I, through Executive Order, signed whistleblower protection for intelligence officers or people who are involved in the intelligence industry.
This message is false. And the President repeated it at his press conference a few days later. ...
From an article by Coleen Henry:
Supervisor Jennifer Niemeyer said the law requires the DNR agents to euthanize animals like Giggles because of the potential for disease and danger to humans.
"These are always very difficult situations for both parties involved, and we are empathetic to the fact of what happened because we know in our heart of hearts they tried to do the right thing," Niemeyer said.
An animal rescue shelter was taking care of a fawn until such time as it could be moved to a proper facility. A vilianous squad of armed thugs AKA swat team came and killed the fawn.
One can just imagine Jennifer Niemeyer saying "the law requires us to kill swat team members beacuse of the potential for accidental shooting of innocent people". In other words, they were just following orders.
It is blabblermaouth's opinion that Jennifer Niemeyer does not have a drop of empathy in her cold cruel heart.
The name of the chief is a secret.
The article does not say, but the former chief's name is Tommy Dawson.Auburn, Alabama is home to sprawling plains, Auburn University, and a troubling police force. After the arrival of a new police chief in 2010, the department entered an era of ticket quotas and worse.
“When I first heard about the quotas I was appalled,” says former Auburn police officer Justin Hanners, who claims he and other cops were given directives to hassle, ticket, or arrest specific numbers of residents per shift. “I got into law enforcement to serve and protect, not be a bully.”
The Shameful Affidavit of Probable CauseRead the whole article, there is so much more. Also bookmark Legal Insurrection because what is posted there is usually quite worth reading.So, what did the affidavit allege to advance the State’s theory of a depraved mind?
...
In the context of the nationally-known racial activists who descended on tiny Sanford FL in the wake of the shooting, the affidavit claimed that “Zimmerman felt that Martin did not belong in the gated community,” a “dog-whistle” claiming that racism had motivated Zimmerman’s suspicions of Martin. This sentiment was buttressed by the contemporaneous release by NBC news of Zimmerman’s non-emergency call to police to report the suspiciously wandering Martin, in which he appeared to make an unsolicited identification of Martin as “he looks black.’ In fact, as everyone involved in the case knew, that tape had been doctored to create exactly the desired perception of racism:
Zimmerman Trial: Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman really “racially profile” Martin?
That affidavit claimed that “Martin attempted to run home but was followed by Zimmerman”. But this cannot be true, because if Martin had indeed run home it would have been impossible—based on the times and distances involved—for the older, clinically obese Zimmerman to catch up to him before he secured safety.
Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman “Chase Down” a Fleeing Martin?
The affidavit claimed that “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher[‘s alleged instruction to not follow] and continued to follow Martin”. This also is known not to be true, because alleged instruction never occurred.
Zimmerman Trial: Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman “chase” Martin against police orders?
The affidavit goes on to claim that “Zimmerman confronted Martin.” Another untruth, as testified to this past week by Rachel Jeantel, who claims to have overheard, by cell phone, the brief confrontational speech between the two men.
Zimmerman Trial Day 3 – End-of-Day Analysis & Video of State’s Witnesses
Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 4 — West’s Cross-Examination of Rachel Jeantel
Worst of all, however, is the fact that ALL of these foundational claims of the affidavit for probable cause were known to be untrue at the time the affidavit was sworn to and filed with the court.
Keeping in mind the foundational and demonstrably false “facts” that were included in the affidavit, we can take a look at some critical information that was left out of the affidavit.
Noting blandly that “a struggle ensued” between the two men, the affidavit fails to acknowledge the almost total absence of injuries on Martin (absent, of course, the gunshot wound that ended the fight), except for cuts on his hands consistent with having struck a blow. Similarly, no mention was made of Zimmerman’s far more extensive injuries, including abrasions, contusions, and lacerations all around his head, consistent with having had his head beaten against a concrete sidewalk (as Zimmerman claimed was the case), nor Zimmerman’s bloody and broken nose, the initial blow that left Zimmerman dazed, on his back, and vulnerable to Martin’s unrelenting (until shot) aggravated assault. Further, no mention was made of any fact consistent with Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. Nor was that very claim of self-defense mentioned.
Again, every one of these facts excluded from the affidavit was known to investigators at the time the document was sworn and filed.
The affidavit closes with the following sentence:
“The facts mentioned in this Affidavit are not a complete recitation of all the pertinent facts and evidence in this case but only are presented for a determination of Probable Cause for Second Degree Murder.”
No kidding.
At least as far back as the 18th century, the left has struggled to avoid facing the plain fact of evil — that some people simply choose to do things that they know to be wrong when they do them. Every kind of excuse, from poverty to an unhappy childhood, is used by the left to explain and excuse evil.
All the people who have come out of poverty or unhappy childhoods, or both, and become decent and productive human beings, are ignored. So are the evils committed by people raised in wealth and privilege, including kings, conquerors and slaveowners.
Why has evil been such a hard concept for many on the left to accept? The basic agenda of the left is to change external conditions. But what if the problem is internal? What if the real problem is the cussedness of human beings?
Rousseau denied this in the 18th century and the left has been denying it ever since. ...
Denying the fact that people, including me and you, are basically evil is quite the same as denying that gravity has any influence over you.
Denying the truth leads only, and inevitably to misery.
I just got an email from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute regarding their work on inequality. I was struck by this passageJust remember that BlabblerMouth will be in charge of determining who deserves what.Since the 1970s, the United States has become increasingly unequal in terms of income, wages, wealth and opportunity. Today, 1 percent of Americans are taking home nearly 20 percent of the country's total income and own nearly 35 percent of the country's wealth. This means that you (yes, you!) are probably making less money than you deserve to.Notice the emphasis on what "you deserve".
Intellectuals argue that diversity is necessary for academic excellence, but what's the evidence? For example, Japan is a nation bereft of diversity in any activity. Close to 99 percent of its population is of one race. Whose students do you think have higher academic achievement — theirs or ours? According to the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment, the academic performance of U.S. high-school students in reading, math and science pales in comparison with their diversity-starved counterparts in Japan.Perhaps people who argue that Diversity is "good" are just TV watching tapioca brains or maybe they are lying liars.