[Breitbart] Thursday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh took a shot at the FBI after it was revealed the agency was alerted to suspected Florida shooter as a possible threat.
Limbaugh said the FBI was "busy" tracking members of the Trump administration seeking sexual harassers and therefore had its resources spread thin.
"So he gave them the actual name of the guy who posted the comment ‐ the promise, the threat ‐ to do this, Nikolas Cruz, white Hispanic. And the FBI didn’t do anything with it," he said. "So Bennight here, the guy you heard on the audio, said, ’I don’t know what the FBI has to do to track down real identities. First, they’d call YouTube, and then YouTube would have to divulge the privacy of whoever sent the alerted and all of this,’ but they still had the real name to go on. But, folks, we need to back off the FBI here just a little bit."
"The FBI is really busy right now," Limbaugh continued. "They’re busy, I’m sure, tracking the entire Trump administration looking for additional sexual harassers. I mean, there may be as many as 4,000 of ’em in there they gotta track down. And then they’re still trying to corroborate the Steele dossier. And that’s a worldwide effort. So the FBI has spread its resources here very, very thin, and we’ve gotta keep that in mind."
#3
Well, they sure didn't have any time for this guy.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/16/2018 10:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Busy trying to cover-up and trying to discredit and takedown Trump? Is that why they are missing signals in mass shootings and bombings? Looks like DOJ is still riddled with DeepStaters.
#5
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want but the uptick in incidents like this is highly suspicious and it doesn't have anything to do with the availability of guns either. We've always had guns but we haven't always mad men committing mass shootings at schools, churches, concerts and bars. There must be another common thread or threads. It seems to me that if a kid tells everybody he can possibly tell that he wants to shoot up a school that constitutes a credible threat which in itself is illegal. And yet nobody lifted a finger to stop him. Is that negligence or complicity?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/16/2018 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
We've always had guns but we haven't always mad men committing mass shootings at schools, churches, concerts and bars.
#7
FBI was notified Jan 5 he was about to attack the school. However the FBI was no longer a law enforcement agency. The Democratic party under Obama converted them into a Deep State organization whos sole purpose was to deny Hillary was committing crimes and to spy on the opponents of the DNC.
#8
Personally I believe Reagan de-Federalized the mental health industry and the states barely picked up the ball.
Add to that certain depression meds have nasty side-effects for a very, very, small percentage of patients.
Lastly, we trust FBI background checks which seems to be something they aren't serious about.
The combination is no problem in generally no big deal but in an insignificantly small number we get a mass shooting and we fail to look at any factors besides the guns because one political party wants to get rid of guns.
#9
The de-institutionalization push came from within the mental health profession, based on an overweening trust in the new medications of the 1960s-‘80s. Ronald Reagan, both as California governor and as president, simply followed the advice of the professionals. It is my understanding that most mental hospitals were state or local institutions, not federal, but I wasn’t paying close attention at the time.
Snopes has preserved an interesting discussion on the subject here.
#15
When is the FBI going to release the list of drugs these shooters are on? I keep hearing that guns are the problem but there are hundreds of millions of guns but only a handful of mass shootings.
[OpsLens] I am still nursing a headache from the latest slayings of police officers which, inevitably, led to my jaw-clenched Saturday. Exacerbating the police tragedies, a friend of mine posted a thread condemning the aesthetics of specialty police vehicles, expressing his discomfort from seeing them in public. Invariably, the phrase "police state" and word "zealots" were bandied-about among pro/con commenters.
I’ve no idea if "E.J." knew about the recent spate consisting of five more police casualties caused by murderous monsters intent on spraying bullets with unambiguous intent to kill, but I surmise he must have. After all, he professes his support and adoration for his "friends in blue."
The following is what E.J. posted: "All due respect to my friends in Blue, I do not believe our police force should be a military. There are always justifications for anything, but a line has to be drawn. Bullet proof armor on police cars I’m okay with, we need to protect our friends and family in blue. Armored personnel carriers with battering rams, I’m not okay with. Tanks I’m not okay with. 15 years ago the police force was trying to find non-lethal deterrents and ways to save lives in tough altercations. Now it seems as if the police force is saying, we will kill you if you don’t comply. As an independent with conservative tendencies, with a love for our law enforcement community feels this way, it’s gone too far."
[Quadrant] The much-touted 'education revolution', rather than fostering innovation and creativity, has produced bureaucratic universities antithetical to spirit of genuine discovery. As one academic observed, there is an infestation of 'unscrupulous people who believe ... they can act any way they want'
#4
Which is why they should never enjoy the cultural privileges granted to classical universities: No separate police forces (no autonomy), full taxation of income in all and property for private institutions(just another business), and an end state subsidizes of non-profitable enterprises.
[WSJ] Are there Native Americans who don't belong to any tribe? Sen. Elizabeth Warren argues that there is at least one, and on Wednesday the Massachusetts Democrat made her case to the National Congress of American Indians.
Recently the Boston Globe explained why Ms. Warren needs to address the issue:
There’s a ghost haunting Elizabeth Warren as she ramps up for a possible 2020 presidential bid and a reelection campaign in Massachusetts this year: her enduring and undocumented claims of Native American ancestry....
Continued on Page 49
#1
I don't think it should matters whether she is Native American or not. My question is why does it matter? If she uses her ethnicity to somehow gain an advantage over other people who do not share that ethnicity, isn't that racist?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/16/2018 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
High cheek bones needs to go in the same book of derision as wide stance.
#6
If she uses her ethnicity to somehow gain an advantage over other people ...
That's exactly what she's done. She was a (not very good) professor at Rutgers when she "discovered" her Indian ancestry. She applied to a vacancy in Harvard on the basis of her Native American ancestry. They hired her on that basis, even though she was one of the less qualified applicants. Then Harvard Law School touted her ancestry in their publicity for several years.
Not only is she fake, but Harvard Faculty Diversity program is also fake.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
02/16/2018 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#8
her enduring and undocumented claims of Native American ancestry....
Funny how this wasn't an issue when she ran against Scott Brown in 2012. I'm more interested in her lack of a Mass. law license when she was doing all those cases while at Harvard.
#9
I have many relatives enrolled in federally recognized tribes. They in turn have many relatives who are also of native descent (i.e. they all share ancestors who are, beyond any reasonable doubt, native Americans, such as those identified in historical records, signers of treaties with the US government etc.) These "other" relatives lack the blood quantum required by most / all tribes in order to be recognized as tribal members per federal regulations. These "other" relatives can prove (by genealogical standards) they are "part native American", whereas Fauxcahontas obviously can't, or is deliberately concealing what she knows. The term "part native American" has been so abused for so long, it has become a code word for the type of lies/hypocrisy Sen. Warren has embraced. I advise my "part native American" relatives to simply state, "I am a direct descendant of Chief X, who signed the treaty of X with the USA in 18XX." This is a verifiable / falsifiable statement, with which only a fool could take uninformed exception.
#11
I am a direct descendant of the sheep grazing Lepreoconak tribe of County Cork. We've gone nearly extinct due to our aversion to work, argumentative disposition, and genetic attraction to spirits. Please remember us at mass.
#13
Maybe her statement was truncated. Maybe her bloodlines are part Indian .......... fighter. Given how industrious her ancestors were in fighting Indians, she should be able to take advantage of hiring preferences for Indians.
[WND] What would Joan Rivers (allegedly) say about Rob Porter?
Until her untimely death, the iconic comedienne was a personality that had somehow lived on into our post-personality era.
Until his #MeToo ex-wives began baying for his blood, Mr. Porter, as good as dead politically, was President Trump’s White House staff secretary.
If the irreverent Rivers were alive today, she’d most certainly joke about Porter, the man upon whom America’s deranged matriarchy has descended:
"They should rehire Rob Porter. He is now the most vetted man in the world."
"No wonder Porter didn’t punch his new paramour, Hope Hicks. Did you see what a knockout she is?"
In the true sense of the word, a personality is an individual with an originality and a distinctness of character and thought ‐ a definition that precludes every member of the joyless matriarchy hammering away at the foundations of a civilized, Anglo-American society: the notion that a man defamed in the court of public opinion has the right to defend himself and confront his accusers; that there are often at least two sides to a story, and that relationships are complex and reciprocal, irreducible to the rigid, one-sided scripts enforced by vicious and vindictive womenfolk.
Or, "peoplefolk," as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would say. Included among America’s malevolent matriarchy are legions of domesticated menfolk. But the liliths, especially, faces contorted, are those screeching at us from the television daily. They want White House Chief of Staff John Kelly gone. For he is alleged to have covered for Porter, calling him "a man of true integrity." Now Porter’s wives swear he is a potential O. J. Simpson.
BLUF:
[Hot Air] "We believe it would be much better for GOP to win," he typed into a private Twitter direct message group to an assortment of WikiLeaks’ most loyal supporters on Twitter. "Dems+Media+liberals woudl then form a block to reign in their worst qualities," he wrote. "With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities., dems+media+neoliberals will be mute." He paused for two minutes before adding, "She’s a bright, well connected, sadistic sociopath."
Assange’s thinking appeared to be rooted not in ideological agreement with the right wing in the U.S., but in the tactical idea that a Republican president would face more resistance to an aggressive military posture than an interventionist President Hillary Clinton would. It would appear Assange nailed that one.
#7
I think it's something that comes with most Ivy League degrees.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
02/16/2018 14:47 Comments ||
Top||
#8
One might question the tag "bright." Her behavior and statements often belie that. She should also be remembered for the quote: "We came. We saw. He died (Daffy)." That speaks to her sociopathic nature. She was most likely drunk and didn't give a shit when Benghazi was under siege and brave men died. Recall that she said afterwards: "What difference does it make?" If anything Assange statement was understated.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/16/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When this judge's overreaching power grab is overturned by the Supreme Court, this judge should be removed from the bench. It was not about the law, but about the judge's dislike for Trump.
The federal district court’s ruling will surely be appealed, and it may very well be reversed. But make no mistake—whatever happens with his ruling, this pattern within the federal judiciary will surely continue. And like all efforts to suppress the desires and interests of the great majority of a nation, this judicial resistance is likely to create a resistance of its own.
I’m a small government guy, however, it’s sadly apparent that the United States of America is paralyzed with political indecision over something the State of Israel figured out more than 40 years ago: all schools should have mandated security features and active shooter protocols.
The horrific scene in Parkland, and the upsetting videos broadcast from the school during the shooting, should be the final straw. The kids should not have been hiding and screaming, they should have been in the midst of a pre-determined security protocol.
President Trump, if the Department of Education can force Americans to deal with the disaster of Common Core, it can certainly issue a federal mandate regarding school security. The time is now.
My personal manifesto is that government should never get involved in an issue unless an ongoing clear and present danger exists to large numbers of people, and that any regulation or legislation has a sunset provision.
Here we are.
In 1974, Israel endured the Ma’alot Massacre in which "Palestinian" terrorists took 115 people hostage at Netiv Meir Elementary School. Twenty-two children and three others were killed and 68 injured. Israel now requires schools with 100 or more students to have a guard posted. The civilian police force handles the entire security system of all schools from kindergarten through college. The Ministry of Education funds shelters and fences, reinforces school buses, and hires and trains guards.
Guards don’t just stand around. They check everyone entering, and engage threats.
And yeah, they’ve got guns.The lawful purposes for carrying guns are very clear: protect school personnel and students, create a sense of security, deter the ill-intentioned, and provide self-defense.
Common sense. Except to the illogical dullards who claim that "adding guns to schools won’t fix anything" and are fixated on the NRA and the ridiculous notions that gun laws magically stop criminals and crazy people from obtaining one of the 300 million guns in our country.
But more to the point, Israel’s Police Community & Civil Guard Department have a preventative care program that encourages safe behavior and offers violence protection strategies in normal situations. Yet students are also trained in how to respond to an active shooter situation.
Ben Goldstein, an American who made aliyah to Israel, and now serves as volunteer security and supporter of IDF soldiers, says America is behind the curve. Nevertheless, he says, it doesn’t take much for students and teachers to protect themselves.
#1
For kids that get mental health care (1) the Principal of their school should be made aware in case that kid shows any additional signs of needing help (2) The gunstores in the area should be made aware and given leave to deny purchases (3) The FBI should be made aware for their background checks (4) The parents should be made aware to secure weapons and keep their eyes open. If the kid is involved in a shooting someone in the 1-4 range should be held accountable, do that and we'll start to see folks act more attentively to the subject.
For adults it is a bit harder, I have no answers except the FBI should take the background checks serious.
[DAWN] THE Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is all set to take up the question of whether Pakistain is complying with international commitments to prevent its financial system from being used by groups that have been designated by the United Nations ...where theory meets practice and practice loses... as terrorist entities, and early indications are that it is going to be a bumpy ride. This is a long running story, going back at least eight years and the country has been scraping past the successive reviews by offering up one ’action plan’ after another, but failing to deliver on its commitments.
For more background, I can point readers to my piece in February last year, titled ’To ban or not to ban’. Back then the government had placed Hafiz Saeed Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
02/16/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Daily Caller] Intelligence officials can selectively release classified information to trusted journalists while withholding the same information from other citizens who request it through open records laws, CIA lawyers argued Wednesday.
In a motion filed in New York federal court, the CIA claimed that limited disclosures to reporters do not waive national security exemptions to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies frequently deny records requests on the basis of protecting sensitive national security information, one of nine exemptions written into the federal FOIA law.
The case stems from lawsuit against the CIA by New York-based independent journalist Adam Johnson, who had used FOIA to obtain emails between the agency’s public information office and selected reporters from the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and The New York Times. The emails the CIA provided to Johnson were redacted, leading him to question why he was not allowed to see the same information that had been given to uncleared reporters.
Johnson challenged the redaction in court, arguing that the CIA, once it has selectively disclosed information to uncleared reporters, cannot claim the same information is protected by a FOIA exemption.
#1
The damage is already done. If a reporter has the data, so do our nation's enemies - sometimes they are one and the same. Disclose the information to the public so we can see what was leaked and to whom it was given.
What really gets me angry though is "Leaking" they call it? How about disclosure of classified information, including sources and methods, to uncleared persons who do not have a need to know? Isn't that a crime? Shouldn't someone in CIA be sent to jail for the original "leak"?
[PJ] In the weeks following "Grace’s" babe.com tell-all about her bad date with actor-comedian Aziz Ansari, the internet has exploded with articles instructing women on how to date. Women should tell their partners "exactly what we want sexually, and how we want it," suggested Roxanne Jones on CNN.com. HuffingtonPost quoted sex therapist Sarah Watson, who says that sexual pleasure is a woman’s "birthright." Newsweek counseled, "Consent must be enthusiastic, it must be verbal, and it must be specific." But hardly anywhere in these myriad articles did anyone suggest that a woman’s sexual experience would be improved if she got to know her partner first.
Call me old-fashioned, but I thought dating and sex were two different things. On a date, a woman can learn important things about her partner ‐ things that may inform her decision about whether or not to have sex with him in the future. Is he polite, kind, and conscientious? Does she find him interesting? Does he make her laugh? Is he the kind of man she could imagine herself in a relationship with? And then ‐ when she’s got a sense of who he is, if she likes him, and where the relationship is going ‐ she can decide whether or not she wants to take things to the next level. But this, apparently, isn't a feminist-approved dating technique.
Much of the tension around dating in America today stems from the idea that sex is simply one item on a menu of things you might do on a first or second date with someone you barely know. Maybe you’ll have dinner, maybe you’ll see a movie, maybe you’ll have sex. But the fact that it’s physically possible to have sex with a stranger doesn’t mean that it’s safe ‐ physically or emotionally ‐ to do so.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[WND] What would Joan Rivers (allegedly) say about Rob Porter?
[Daily Caller] Intelligence officials can selectively release classified information to trusted journalists while withholding the same information from other citizens who request it through open records laws, CIA lawyers argued Wednesday.
