Rick Perry vs. the D.U.I. D.A. - Corruption at the Lowest Levels

149
Sat, Aug 16, 2014 - 2:53pm

I'm no fan of Texas governor Rick Perry. But as a resident of Austin, Texas, I am so outraged by the indictment against him that I'd be happy to pick up a placard and protest this insanity. Here's the story in a nutshell, in case you missed it:

  1. Last year, the Austin District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg (a Democrat) was caught driving the wrong way with an open bottle of vodka in her car. She was almost three times above the legal limit.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxsCH_p1oc
  2. Brought to jail, she became erratic and violent, and kept trying to abuse her position to be released.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxX-qhJTfkI
  3. She then refused to resign.
  4. Only upon public calls for her head on a platter, did she arrange for a 45-day "harsh" sentence to somehow "prove" that she was contrite and fit to remain in office.
  5. The Democrats in Texas did not want her to resign because Perry could replace her with a Republican. So they have fought to keep her in office.
  6. Rick Perry then responded by demanding her resignation, and in the event that she did not, he would de-fund her office with a line-item veto (allowed by the Texas Constitution).
  7. This is apparently an "abuse of power" and he has now been indicted by a Travis County Grand Jury. (Austin, Texas is in Travis County, and Austin is the capital of Texas.) If D.A. Rosemary Lehmberg is the driving force (ahem) behind this indictment, she is an idiot. She is now going to suffer having her DUI videos resurface and become fodder for national debate. Real smart.

Local talk radio was all abuzz when the Lehmberg story initially came out. Almost universally, everyone wanted this woman fired. Granted, the talk radio in Austin skews towards the right, but I cannot remember one person defending this woman. No-one wants a D.A. who so wantonly flaunts the law - well, maybe a few, apparently.

What angered a lot of folks was that she refused to resign - and that she seemed fairly unrepentant of her actions. She acted she like a victim of everyone else.

So we complain a lot about corruption at the top, but what about corruption at the bottom? Clearly, the Travis County justice system has lost its impartiality and now runs based on partisan politics, and not what is good, fair, or right.

You might remember the old show "The Dukes of Hazzard." In it, the Duke boys were constantly on the run from the corrupt sheriff, Roscoe P. Coltraine, and the mayor, Boss Hogg. Boss Hogg had his fingers in every pie. He loved money, and he wanted more of it.

Funny. Boss Hogg's brand of corruption was fairly benign - TV's romanticized version of corruption. And you never actually saw Boss Hogg endangering lives through drunk driving - though of course, all the crazy driving around Hazzard County was probably not very wise either.

So the Austin District Attorney - let's call her "Bessy Hogg" - has decided that she's above the law, even as she is tasked with prosecuting and upholding the law.

There seems to be a conflict of interest here.

Consider the following points:

1) Just because you are a woman, doesn't mean you are going to be a kinder, gentler politician than a man. Let's stop with this stupid idea that if women run the world, it would be better. No, if women ran the world, they'd be the corrupt Bessy Hogg's of the world.

2) Once people put political party above laws, character and ethics, we have a recipe for a Banana Republic. I could not believe a lot of the comments I read on the Austin-American Statement cheering Perry's indictment. These folks could care less that their own District Attorney goes out and risks their lives on the road with her open bottles of vodka. Destroying Perry is more important to them.

3) As noted in Dinesh D'Souza's film "America," we have so many laws on the books now, that on any given day, each one of us probably commits a felony and doesn't even know it. At what point will the surveillance state make it extremely easy for Big Brother to target you personally because of your opposition to a government policy or an official? If you think these types of politically motivated prosecutions are just limited to the D'Souzas, Perrys and Scott Walkers of this world, think again.

The thing is, I'm not naive. I don't think Rick Perry is as clean as a whistle. If he should be investigated for anything, it should be those donations from Big Pharma that might have influenced his campaign to force young girls to take the HPV vaccine.

But what he did in regards to Bessy Hogg was 100% right in my book.

Unfortunately, some people who are completely blinded by partisan hatred will simply try to abuse the legal system in any way they can to gain power. I find this despicable. It takes political power from other people and imposes your will upon them. It destroys democracy.

Look, I don't want Rick Perry to be president, but I would never stop him from running. Let him run and let the voters decide.

You may have heard the saying "As above, so below." Some people have suggested that the lawlessness of the Obama administration has or will trickle down to the local levels, because if he flaunts the law, everyone will.

I disagree. I think the saying needs to be changed to: "As below, so above."

Our federal government isn't out of control and lawless because it has somehow imposed this on the people. On the contrary, a good section of "the people" have become out of control and lawless, and they are now demanding government officials who enact their agendas.

Dan Calabrese is a conservative columnist for Herman Cain's website. He's often very dismissive of libertarians, and I generally disagree with him. In fact, I disagree with a good portion of his article "Bill Bennett: This notion that marijuana isn't that harmful is just plain wrong." Yet, he wrote something in there that really made me stop and think about where our country is headed:

"There is also this: I do think American culture has changed in the sense that when lawlessness is rampant, we used to blame the lawbreakers. Now we are increasingly willing to blame the laws, figuring that if that many people are violating the law, it must not have enough public support to remain in place. I would suggest that in this case the problem is not the law but the denigration of culture such that people simply no longer care if what they're doing is legal or not - often to the point of self-destructive irrationality."

Wow. I really hope you think about what he said, no matter how much you might be bristling about his anti-marijuana position.

I do disagree with him that we should never "blame" or look at our laws. What I think is happening is that we have such a mix of ridiculous, overbearing laws (like those that restrict the size of a soda) along with laws that really should be followed (such as not driving while intoxicated), that people have started to pick and choose which laws should be followed or enforced.

When this selective enforcement is used for political payback, and that becomes the norm, or laws are flaunted at will, there can be only one of two results in the long run:

America, the Banana Republic

-or-

Total Anarchy

We'd like to hear your voice. Join Freeople for free.

About the Author

  149 Comments

F.Capra
Aug 17, 2014 - 8:38pm

Back to Rick

Interesting reader comment in an Austin paper on the indictment:

The public integrity unit was investigating perrys friends. He saw a way to solve that, make her resign, in which case he gets to appoint his own whipping boy and tell them to leave his friends alone, or take away the units money so they cant investigate. He could have just vetoed the money and it would have been fine. But threatening a puplic official into quiting is, umm well illegal. He did something illegal and hope he pays if for no other reason than to set a precedent that politicians can be held accountable for their miss deeds

Three points to consider for an unbiased analysis of the charges against the governor:
1. There have been other public officials to be arrested for DWI, including Republican judges and prosecutors. Has Gov. Perry ever threatened a Republican official under the same circumstances and tried to coerce one of them to resign? No. Never. So before you question whether Perry's indictment was politicaly motivated, ask yourself whether the the Governor set his own indictment in motion by misrepresenting to the public that he wanted Lehmberg's resignation because he had "ost confidence" in her, when the real reason was that she was a Democrat and he blamed her for doing her job, which was to investigate public corruption.
2. A governor is entitled to veto legislation. The defense has tried to spin the indictment as challenging his power to veto of the funding for the Public Integrity Unit. But the indictment was not for vetoing the budget. I get suspicious when lawyers on either side of a case try to set up straw men just to knock them down, while avoiding the real issue. The real issue here is what the indictments were really for: abuse of power and attemting to coerce a public official, which is what Perry did when he threatened to veto the budget if Lehmberg did not resign. Perry's crime had aready occurred before he actually vetoed anything. A grand jury returned a two-count indictment.
3. Perry was not indicted by Lehmberg or her office. In fact, Lehmberg's office recused itself entirely. A Republican judge from San Antonio, Bert Richardson, appointed Micahel McCrum as the unbiased special prosecutor. Is he a liberal or a Democrat? Not that I can find. His biography says he was a Dallas police officer before going to law school. Then he was a federal prosecutor under the first Presdent Bush and both Republican Senators Cornyn and Hutchinson recommended him to be US Attorney in San Antonio, That is who handled the presentation to the grand jury. Now Perry is entitled to the presumption of innocence and a trial.

Now my own opinion: My perception is that the state has solid proof that Perry broke the law and abused his power by trying to coerce another elected offical to resign. His threats are easy to find in many news sites. If Perry had evidence to the contrary, he would be offering it, but instead he has claimed his indictment was politically motivated and has tried to change the story to be about the veto. He appears to be avoiding discussion of what he was really indicted for.

For 14 years, Perry has run a pay-to-play political culture where Big Money contributors were rewarded. Remember the Perry's proposal to have the state pay to vaccinate teenage girls aganst HPV, after the vaccine maker contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Perry? That was the culture during the long Perry governorship. The Public Integrty Unit was investigating one of these intiatives when the opportunity fell into Perry's lap to try to stop it: Lehmberg was arrested for DWI and her conduct gave Perry a perfect chance to appoint a Republican replacemwent who would shut down the investigation into some of Perry's cronies and his own office's practices. Had Lehmberg resigned, the goveror could have picked her replacement until the next election. So Perry overstepped his power -- not by a veto -- but by the threat to veto the unit's budget unless Lehmberg resigned. He tried to coerce her. He failed. I think a fair-minded jury will convict, which should be enough to remove this man who has embarassed Texas for over a decade with his antics and backroom deals. While a Republican appellate court may let him off, just as it did Tom Delay, the conviction will spell the end of Rick Perry's public life.

Ozymandias
Aug 17, 2014 - 9:23pm

Missouri Revised Statutes Section 575.150 makes it a crime

to resist arrest. Sub Section (4) provides that "It is no defense to a prosecution ..(for resisting or fleeing from arrest)... that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest." I would suggest that anyone interested in what the law is in Missouri, Google that section of the Missouri statutes and read it for yourself in its entirety. I'm not expressing an opinion on the propriety of that statute.

Libero
Aug 17, 2014 - 9:23pm

Bartertown... funny how facts are in the eye of

the beholder. Your transcript: with my comments after each section underlined

"@6:28/6:29 of video

#1 How’d he get from there to there?

#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck What does he mean, that Brown was over the truck, on the hood?

{crosstalk}

#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him

{crosstalk} So Brown was in the police truck with the police, no handcuffs, not in the back seat I assume.

#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him – So the police drew his gun and told him to freeze. Brown apparently stopped and walked back towards the officer.

#1. Oh, the police got his gun

#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him The police kept shooting and shooting, Brown (or police?) continues to walk towards the police. How many shots landed would come out of the autopsy, or if any shots entered from the rear. So Brown was shot because he was walking towards the officer. I guess better to be shot walking towards an officer than for walking in the middle of the street (my sarcasm).

{crosstalk}

#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing

#1 The Police?

#2 The Police shot him

#1 Police?

#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”) If this #2 person is the same person talking then he's "thinking" so is this all conjecture??? I believe he is saying that once the police started shooting him, that Brown turned and ran, again, but dropped to the street.

So Bartertown, you draw your conclusions, I'll draw mine. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Safety Dan
Aug 17, 2014 - 10:44pm

Police State Was Mentioned Earlier

Maybe it would be good to listen to this attorney's talk... It was posted earlier..

THE ROOM: Special Edition---Our Highest-Rated Speech of All Time

Is America A Police State? Marc Victor @ Casey Conference

Is America A Police State?

His talk was downright chilling. And now, for the first time, I'm excited to share his Casey Summit presentation in its entirety with all of you. He's the highest-reviewed outside speaker we've ever gotten feedback on. This is a must watch.


Aug 17, 2014 - 10:49pm

@F. Capra - here's the thing with that "argument" (re: Perry)

That might all be well and good, but it still does not change the basic optics here. And there's a reason why David Axelrod himself said the indictment was "sketchy." Axelrod is the master of optics. And he knows how to massage the media and manipulate things to favor his side.

All of that "rationalizing" does not change the basic fact of Lehmberg's initial disgusting behavior, abuse of her power, and refusal to step down. It was not just the DUI/DWI. It was her behavior in jail following arrest.

When we have someone this obviously corrupt and selfish in such a position of power (Lehmberg), and it appears that Democrats are using Perry's "attack" on her (for whatever the reason) as a reason to get back at him, they've lost their trust factor. This attack on Perry only excites their base. The rest of us roll our eyes at the stupid abuse of taxpayer money. It's a waste. He's leaving office soon anyway.

In other words, while I don't trust Perry, I most certainly don't trust the people prosecuting him either. The side going after Perry has absolutely no credibility because they have shown their total lack of integrity in not calling for Lehmberg to also step down.

This means that people like me are just going to be fed up and disgusted with the lot of them. It most certainly won't make me vote for Wendy Davis in November, that's for certain.

You can post all that expository stuff all you want about how evil Perry is, and I honestly don't give a crap. Because the side charging him isn't showing any integrity either. Clean up your own house first, hypocrites.

Karankawa
Aug 18, 2014 - 1:14am

@ Safety Dan

Thanks for posting the Marc Victor talk. I'm familiar with him by subscribing to freedomsphoenix.com and listening to Ernest Hancock. Good stuff.

This is ALL about control of people including the Perry indictment. Perry is corrupt as they come and I won't take a side and defend one crook over1 another, (and I don't think Stephanie is doing this nor do I see most people commenting here really doing it either).

That said, I think this event does have some importance. And I think Two things stand out to me.

1) These bastards USE the people for their own control and are nothing but parasites, nothing more or less on each 'side'.

2) The only way to win is to get out of 'their' system of 'convenience' THEY have created to entrap you.

I'm encouraged by all of the efforts I see concerning the crypto curriencies, youtube gardening vids, and of course gold and silver forums like this one.

The problem is not the 'leaders' we have in control, the problem is the POWER we have given them.

It's age old, and I think Jefferson said a government that can give you everything you want can also take away everything you have.

People understood that for a long time but evil NEVER STOPS. Time for the masses to relearn it. We will decend into the abis until people demand personal accountability of anyone they give government power over them.

I might mention that the American Revolution was successful to creating a great situation because people understood what it was all about. They were educated and led by the 'Black Brigade" for resolve. There is no Black Brigade today as it has been taken over by the IRS ...

Ideas are powerful, and they have been divided.

Karankawa
Aug 18, 2014 - 1:27am

Thanks for posting the Marc

Thanks for posting the Marc Victor talk. I'm familiar with him by subscribing to freedomsphoenix.com and listening to Ernest Hancock. Good stuff.

This is ALL about control of people including the Perry indictment. Perry is corrupt as they come and I won't take a side and defend one crook over1 another, (and I don't think Stephanie is doing this nor do I see most people commenting here really doing it either).

That said, I think this event does have some importance. And I think Two things stand out to me.

1) These bastards USE the people for their own control and are nothing but parasites, nothing more or less on each 'side'.

2) The only way to win is to get out of 'their' system of 'convenience' THEY have created to entrap you.

I'm encouraged by all of the efforts I see concerning the crypto curriencies, youtube gardening vids, and of course gold and silver forums like this one.

The problem is not the 'leaders' we have in control, the problem is the POWER we have given them.

It's age old, and I think Jefferson said a government that can give you everything you want can also take away everything you have.

People understood that for a long time but evil NEVER STOPS. Time for the masses to relearn it. We will decend into the abis until people demand personal accountability of anyone they give government power over them.

I might mention that the American Revolution was successful to creating a great situation because people understood what it was all about. They were educated and led by the 'Black Brigade" for resolve. There is no Black Brigade today as it has been taken over by the IRS ...

Ideas are powerful, and they have been divided.

Strongsidejedi
Aug 18, 2014 - 3:51am

Regarding Ferguson, MO & Autopsy result analysis

The situation in Texas (re: Perry) is going to be a sidelined story because the situation in Missouri is escalating into a national and international situation.

Tonight, the Missouri national guard is being activated. It is clear that Gov. Nixon has chosen to escalate matters and show greater force in the city. To be honest with you, I am not convinced that the show of force will help matters.

With the autopsy results and the police investigation still missing, the results of the second autopsy appear to show that the victim of the shooting was in fact shot 6 times.

As Dr. Baden stated himself, shooting an unarmed suspect six times is "too many" shots.

While the autopsy can not provide forensic information to reconstruct the shooting scene, the absence of information from the local law enforcement agency and the local government has resulted in a mobilization of state government military assets to contain this problem.

Will this mobilization of national guard actually calm the situation?

I hope that I am wrong but I seriously doubt the use of the national guard in this situation.

The mobilization of national guard to Ferguson might control the 1 mile of roadway, but will not calm the situation in the state of Missouri. The destabilization of the situation is caused by the absent disclosure and the absent action against the murderer.

In a prior posting, I was challenged regarding my use of the term "murderer". I will not recant this use of the term "murder" or "murderer". It is murder to shoot someone six times.

Need I remind us of the definition of murder? I will, just to set in stone the debate.

The definition of murder includes:

"something outrageous or blameworthy"

The definition of murderer is

"one who murders; especially : one who commits the crime of murder"

When the suspect is already shot four times in the right side of the body, there is really no reason to keep firing. Four shots from a police revolver is usually much more than enough to incapacitate a victim.

This man, in my medical judgment, was murdered by the officer involved.

The final two shots appear to be the head shots. The reason is that that victim is still standing during the prior four shots. The wounds appear to track up the victim's arm. Therefore, the victim was shot with the officer to the right side of the victim. The victim may have had his right arm up to shield himself. The arm would have taken bullets intended for the victim's chest. The arm drops as the victim rotates to the left and turns away from the gun fire.

The reason is obvious to any medical examiner or any doctor with Trauma Room experience. A head shot like the 5th round kills the person instantly. The victim collapses. The exit wound causes the head to move in an opposite direction. The head tilts in a particular direction, determined by the physics of the shot. The information released from the second autopsy lacks sufficient detail and clarity to conclude if the person was falling forward or backward.

The final shot is on the same trajectory as the prior shot. But, because the victim's body is collapsing, the angle of the bullet wound in the body shows the direction of the gun and the body at that instant in time. It is most likely that the victim was falling forward with his head flexed forward.

The diagram from the second autopsy did not carry a diagram of where the bullets were located in the body and where the exit wounds were located. The fifth gun shot would have fractured the victim's skull and created a wound to the brain with traceable bullet trajectory in the brain. We are not privy to this information.

Regardless, we can see what happened from the trajectory of the sixth bullet, which was through the face to strike the collar. The victim's body was standing and was likely collapsing down. While his head was bent forward and his body was collapsing forward, the officer fired the sixth shot into the head of the victim.

Strongsidejedi Sound Money Minnow
Aug 18, 2014 - 5:09am

@Sound Money Minnow

Your continuing desire to end the dialog reflects poorly on your argument. If you really held a position that was legally defensible, then make your argument. But, your desire to end the dialog reinforces the perspective that members of local law enforcement agencies can have unwise and irrational complexities.

For this reason, I posted the Stanford University experiment. Did you even read my comments? I doubt it.

You really did not click on that wiki link and you did not read and review that study. I was hoping to engage you in a discussion of the situation in the Stanford experiment, but if you want to focus on the "political", you are making a mistake. I was the person posting information from mental and medical peer reviewed journals. It is you who is focusing on the political.

You are the person who brought up the DOJ in a political context. You wrote, "When I see the Justice Department stepping in I see an agenda". You wrote, "Eric Holder would already be gone, or sitting in jail for contempt".

I have not injected any political commentary regarding either the DOJ or Attorney General Holder into the discussion. It is you who is injecting the political commentary, and your claim "you think turning this incident political will help to get to the truth" is indeed a strange comment. You appear to be projecting on me your presuppositions and your bias. You need to do some serious self-reflection and counseling. You should not be projecting on me or others your internal issue. But, you are. And, as a physician, I am not going to let you sit in that mistaken position. My goal is to treat you even if you don't like me for making the call.

---

Arrogance towards the judicial system is not appropriate for a law enforcement officer. Though in the law enforcement community, I have heard the frustrations that you express. I have heard it directly from the Sheriff's units who stand in the prison wards, the general hospitals, and the ER's where I have worked and functioned. It isn't that I do not understand the sentiment. It's just that your attitude is not legal.

Your prior complaint about the "monday morning quarterbacking" of the police is intellectually vacuous and totally irrational. Your position will definitely have no sympathy from a board certified physician having trauma room experience in a major urban area. As a physician, I get more second guessing and "monday morning quarterbacking" than you do. Every decision that a physician makes in a "major urban ER" ends up reviewed by everyone on the medical team. This isn't seen as a problem because if I did screw up, the review by others would catch the error in judgment and prevent harm to the patient.

In your case, you want no review on the officer involved in an "officer involved shooting". Most significantly, when officers are involved in the death or bodily harm to a suspect, it is highly important for the law enforcement agency to review the officer's conduct.

Normally, these reviews must occur after EVERY discharge of a policeman's firearm. You should already know these facts if you are really experienced in law enforcement.

You know that review of all actions and frankly even your own private life are part of the job in "a major urban area" as a "law enforcement officer".

When an officer discharges a firearm during duty, there are multiple documents that are required to explain the circumstance. These documents are used for internal affairs procedures and also in legal activity surrounding the officer and the department involved.

Your attitude about "People who make an enemy of the police better make sure and make friends with the criminals" is awful.

When you get injured on the job, you need the doctors more than the doctors need you. But, do we the physicians make a judgment on the value of your life based upon your prior conduct? Nope. We save the patient's life without asking questions about their prior acts.

We do not choose who to help based upon our perception of their life.

I have personally had circumstances where my colleagues were held at gun point, where I narrowly escaped gun point, where I was working in close proximity with physicians who were shot and killed in the line of duty. One moment they were helping patients. The next moment, their life was over in a pool of blood at the hands of handguns in the hands of an assailant and in the presence of county law enforcement who were unable to react in time.

So, your comment really doesn't mean much to me. There really isn't much you can do personally when the cities of America have an arms race between the people and the local government itself.

Physicians do not get to carry concealed carry permitted weapons. We also do not get pensions like yours, salary like yours, or benefits like yours. But, in the major urban areas of America, the physicians get routinely exposed to more risk in the major trauma units and ER's than you do as a cop on the beat.

There are alot of qualified people who can be a street level law enforcement officer. Can you shed some light on the amount of time spent in training to prepare for a street beat in St. Louis or a major urban area?

There really are not very many people who can be board certified physicians who can assess your wounds, stabilize your body to keep you alive from the ER to the OR, then help the OR team dig the bullets out of your body, patch your wounded organs, and put you in a critical care unit for several days until we get you off of mechanical ventilation. Let me help you on the time spent in training...its about 11-14 years AFTER high school.

We give up our natural lives for you and your colleagues and then you write about "people who make an enemy of the police". When we are up at 2-3 AM digging bullets out of victim's bodies, we really don't give a flying care what the past of the patient is. We treat each and every patient who comes in the door with the same care and the same expertise. It really doesn't matter if you are the President of the University or the drunk guy from Skid Row... you would get the same care in the trauma unit! WE DO NOT STRATIFY OUR CARE according to prejudicial views.

Your comment suggests extreme bias and prejudice of the law. Do you have experience with that behavior and attitude? Because if you are in my neck of the country, we would have serious concerns about your participation on the department.

We (the "major urban area" physicians) repair the wounded bodies of the victims of violence in the cities of America. We do it on a nightly and daily basis. When I see disdain by anyone regarding loss of life, it really bothers me. So, you will need to excuse me if I am stepping on your "law enforcement" toes. But, law enforcement is shooting tear gas, rubber bullets, and live rounds. What in the world are you arguing about? That LEO should have no oversight, no review, and the ability to shoot to kill? Seriously? Really?

From my perspective as a physician, the fact of the matter is that once some idiot pulls the trigger, it is me and my colleagues who have to spend the next HOURS TO YEARS repairing those victims of gun violence.

It is ME and MY PHYSICIAN COLLEAGUES who stand up at 2 AM on hour 20 of a 36 hour shift in that ER and OR. And, we have to do that without the pay that officers get, without the benefits you get, and without the pensions you get.

If I have to start wearing kevlar and doing a CCW 45, I don't need you. But, you will need me.

Please remember this when you pop off at another doctor.

Spartacus Rex
Aug 18, 2014 - 6:03am

@ Strongsidejedi WHOA!

You are way out of line Doc! As well, attempting to put words in SMM's mouth even after he expressed in thread the opposite of what you are presuming to accuse him of.

I personally know physicians in your state who have concealed carry permits, and your attempt now to pass your profession /peers off as Saints, is rank Bull Sh*t as I personally know of many instances where such have F*d Up Big Time, yet such never makes the evening news.

Your experience in Law and/or Law Enforcement is minimal, and therefore you should think twice before jumping to conclusions and making asinine assumptions.

Curious, just how many times have you volunteered to go out on a ride along in your community and see for yourself what LEO's face everyday?

Take a chill pill Doc, as your emotions are clouding your judgment on this issue at the moment.

Cheers, S. Rex

Safety Dan
Aug 18, 2014 - 7:29am

I mentioned this in another

I mentioned this in another thread, my eyes are bleeding from such long threads. Is it possible to reduce the length? Not just in thread, but others seem a bit long. Thanks for consideration..

-Safety Dan

DeaconBenjamin
Aug 18, 2014 - 8:13am

“Kipper und Wipper”: the German Financial Meltdown of 1621-23

The great German hyperinflation of 1923 is passing out of living memory now, but it has not been entirely forgotten. Indeed, you don’t have to go too far to hear it cited as a terrible example of what can happen when a government lets the economy spin out of control. At its peak in the autumn of that year, inflation in the Weimar Republic hit 325,000,000 percent, while the exchange rate plummeted from 9 marks to 4.2 billion marks to the dollar; when thieves robbed one worker who had used a wheelbarrow to cart off the billions of marks that were his week’s wages, they stole the wheelbarrow but left the useless wads of cash piled on the curb. A famous photo taken in this period shows a German housewife firing her boiler with an imposing pile of worthless notes. Easy though it is to think of 1923 as a uniquely terrible episode, though, the truth is that it was not. It had also happened long before, in the early years of the 17th century. And that hyperinflation (which is generally known by its evocative German name, the kipper- und wipperzeit) was a lot stranger than what happened in 1923. In fact, it remains arguably the most bizarre episode in all of economic history. What made the kipper- und wipperzeit so incredible was that it was the product not only of slipshod economic management, but also of deliberate attempts by a large number of German states to systematically defraud their neighbors. This monetary terrorism had its roots in the economic problems of the late 16th century and lasted long enough to merge into the general crisis of the 1620s caused by the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War, which killed roughly 20 percent of the population of Germany. While it lasted, the madness infected large swaths of German-speaking Europe, from the Swiss Alps to the Baltic coast, and it resulted in some surreal scenes: Bishops took over nunneries and turned them into makeshift mints, the better to pump out debased coinage; princes indulged in the tit-for-tat unleashing of hordes of crooked money-changers, who crossed into neighboring territories equipped with mobile bureaux de change, bags full of dodgy money, and a roving commission to seek out gullible peasants who would swap their good money for bad. By the time it stuttered to a halt, the kipper- und wipperzeit had undermined economies as far apart as Britain and Muscovy, and—just as in 1923—it was possible to tell how badly things were going from the sight of children playing in the streets with piles of worthless currency. What happened in Germany after bad money started to circulate there in about 1600 might have been designed as a case study in Gresham’s Law. Coins were increasingly stripped of their gold, silver and copper content; as a result, the imperial currency, the kreuzer, lost about 20 percent of its value between 1582 and 1609. After that, things began to go seriously wrong. One reason for the lurch into crisis was the need felt by Germany’s thousands of rival rulers to hoard the cash they’d need to pay for the Thirty Years’ War, which broke out in 1618. But another was a desire for revenge against rogue states that were churning out debased coinage and allowing it to leak into their neighbors’ healthier economies. Notes Kindleberger: Debasement was at first limited to one’s own territory. It was then found that one could do better by taking bad coins across the border of neighboring principalities and exchanging them for good with the ignorant common people, bringing back the good coins and debasing them again. The territorial unit on which the original injury had been inflicted would debase its own coin in defense, and turn to other neighbors to make good its losses and build its war chest. More and more mints were established, debasement accelerated in hyper-fashion. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kipper-und-wipper-rogue-traders-r...

DeaconBenjamin
Aug 18, 2014 - 8:16am

How India Evaded The One Bank’s Gold-Embargo

By now; regular readers are familiar with another one of the One Bank’s “Wile E. Coyote” operations in the gold market: it’s brute-force ‘attack’ on the gold market of India – the world’s largest (real) gold market. This attack was necessitated when yet another one of the One Bank’s mega-crimes (its first “bail-in”) produced a series of unexpected consequences, for which the banksters were clearly not prepared. With the Cyprus “bail-in” advertising the fact that (corrupt) Western governments were now prepared to simply confiscate any paper assets (and hand those assets to the criminal Big Banks of the West); this caused a massive stampede out of one of the most-fraudulent forms of paper assets: the One Bank’s own, paper-called-gold “products”. We know that this exodus out of the Big Bank’s paper-frauds in the gold market was an unintended consequence, as reports of the beginning of this stampede were quickly accompanied by other reports that these tentacles of the One Bank were frantically soaking-up billions of dollars of units in their own, fraudulent, paper-called-gold “bullion-ETF’s”. Rule #1 of any self-respecting Con Artist is that one never “invests” in their own scams. You can’t cheat others when most of the money in the “con” is your own. Yet, at least at one point, the banksters had soaked-up so much of this fraudulent paper-called-gold, that their holdings exceeded (by dollar value) their own gigantic, illegal, short positions. This prompted the serial-liars of the Corporate media to proclaim that the banksters were now “net long” in the gold market, an absurdity which (sadly) was widely parroted throughout the gold sector, even though the banksters had been buying almost nothing but paper. Even with the massive (and frantic) buying by the Big Banks of their own, fraudulent “bullion-ETF’s”; total holdings in the largest of those fraud-funds (GLD) fell by more than 40%. If not for the desperation-buying by these tentacles; those gigantic frauds would have completely collapsed. But that was only one of the unintended consequences of the Cyprus Steal. As knowledgeable readers know (thanks to Jeffrey Christian); the fraudulent “gold market” operated by these Big Banks is only 1% “gold” and 99% paper-called-gold (i.e. paper). Thus the stampede out of that fraudulent paper caused roughly a 30% drop in the already-depressed price of gold. This was nothing less than a “dinner chime” for Pavlov’s Dogs. Global gold demand exploded to a never-before-seen level, led by imports from the world’s two largest populations: China and India. At one point, those two nations alone were importing gold at an annual rate of approximately 4,000 tonnes per year. This is roughly double the total annual supply from global gold mining (once China’s own domestic production is subtracted). We know that this was also an unintended/unexpected consequence of the Cyprus Steal, because the One Bank was immediately forced into a desperate, heavy-handed attack on global gold demand. With China being largely immune from the attacks of the banksters (because of its massive war-chest of U.S. dollar holdings), they focused their malice on India. These serial currency-manipulators immediately launched a savage attack on India’s currency, the rupee – expecting that the subsequent rise in the price of gold (expressed in depreciating rupees) would curb Indian gold-demand on its own. When that attack actually caused India’s gold imports to rise further (as frightened Indians rid themselves of their plunging, paper rupees); the One Bank was forced into even more absurd/draconian measures. First of all; it had the liars of the Corporate media fabricate the ridiculous fiction that India’s gold imports were “causing a current-account deficit”. However, a “current-account deficit” is essentially a currency deficit, and with respect to global rules on importing gold; gold is always treated as a currency. Obviously it is/was no more possible for India to create a currency-deficit by importing gold (a currency) than it would be for it to “create a fruit deficit” by importing apples. Behind the scenes; the One Bank issued an ultimatum to India’s government: bring its official gold-imports down to near-zero, or the banksters would finish the destruction of India’s currency (i.e. create hyperinflation) – and totally destroy India’s economy with it. With their gun pointed to its head; the government of the world’s most gold-loving nation instituted a near-total ban on gold imports into the country. Not surprisingly; the One Bank’s desperate, ill-conceived attack on India’s gold market produced yet another series of (for the bankers) unintended consequences: 1) Re-ignited gold-smuggling into India, at an exponentially increasing rate. 2) Caused a “blackmarket” for gold to immediately develop in India, along with a separate, real-world price for gold. 3) Caused India’s silver imports to instantly spike to a new, all-time record. Arguably, these new problems which the One Bank created for itself were/are even worse than the old problems it was trying to solve, when it launched its economic terrorism against India. Indeed, the subsequent actions of the banksters themselves support this viewpoint. In resurrecting gold-smuggling into India; the One Bank was creating a “gold trade” over which it had no direct or indirect control. Worse still (by far); it was creating a gold price (the blackmarket price) which it had no capacity to influence, directly. Finally, with all anecdotal evidence indicating that global silver supplies are even more-precarious than the supply of gold; creating record silver-imports in India represented an even more serious threat than when it (previously) created record gold imports. Since then, we have seen the One Bank back-off on its gold-embargo blackmail. However, when we look more closely at the details, what we see is nothing less than a full-fledged “retreat”. This is illustrated very clearly by the fact that India’s government began easing its import-restrictions just after India’s official gold imports had spiked to a multi-month high. This was reflected in the following headline: Rising gold imports in January scupper hopes India will lift import restrictions Yet less than three weeks after this report that Indian gold imports had risen more than 800% from their (extreme) low of only 3 tonnes (in August of last year); India’s government began relaxing its official gold-import restrictions. Then in May, it relaxed import restrictions still further, even as official imports into India continued to rise steadily back toward normal levels. This reversal in policy by India’s government, and reversal in strategy by the One Bank confirms two important points. First of all; it proves that the supposed “justification” for the gold-embargo (India’s current-account deficit) was a lie. If India’s government curtailed its gold imports to near-zero to (supposedly) “fight its current account deficit”, it would not ease-up on those same restrictions at the exact moment that gold imports were suddenly rising rapidly, even with the restrictions still in place. Secondly, it is an implicit confession by the One Bank that its attack on India’s gold market was a dismal failure, on multiple levels. Most of those failures were previously identified (above), with one exception. Evidence is now emerging that India’s government was evading the gold-embargo – at least through acts of omission, if not (direct) acts of volition. Specifically, evidence has emerged from Switzerland (via an article in The Times of India) that even as the One Bank’s gold-embargo on India was (supposedly) taking and keeping imports at near-zero levels, official gold exports from Switzerland were exploding to unprecedented levels: An analysis of the Swiss government’s bullion export data shows that India accounted for 41.91 per cent of total exports during June, up from 33 per cent in May and at just about 14 per cent at the start of the year. The gold exports to India in January 2014 stood at less than one billion Swiss francs [per month] but has been consistently rising since then. [emphasis mine] The important point to note here is that India’s very substantial gold imports from Switzerland began “consistently rising” in January, but the government didn’t begin to ease its (official) import restrictions until the latter half of March. This raises an obvious question: to whom were these Swiss bullion wholesalers shipping their official exports, before there had been any (official) easing of Indian import restrictions? Put another way; while we know that this gold (and silver) left Switzerland via open, official, and legitimate(?) channels, how did it enter India? We get a very strong “clue” to that answer by extracting an earlier quote, from the same Times of India article, starting with the very first line: As a debate continues on alleged black money stashed by Indians in Swiss banks, India now accounts for nearly 42 per cent of total gold and silver leaving Switzerland shores – largest for any single country… The latest data comes at a time when India has stepped up pressure on Switzerland to share information on alleged stashing of black money by Indians in Swiss banks. This was an article about blackmarket gold transactions (for India), but in Switzerland, a nation where its bankers are notorious for having absolutely no scruples of any kind in the handling of money, these same gold transactions are “official” and “legal” exports. What must be understood here is that unlike most of the clueless West; both Indians and the Swiss clearly regard gold as “money”. Irrespective of the One Bank’s overall, near-absolute control over the global financial industry; in Switzerland the world’s most-notorious money-launderers can legally (and openly) call themselves “bankers”. And there will apparently always be an endless supply of these “bankers” prepared to engage in any kind of financial transaction (including the exporting of gold) with anyone (including the gold-smugglers of India). Indeed, it can hardly be regarded as coincidence that the One Bank began to abandon its gold-embargo (and allow India to relax restrictions) only weeks after Swiss bankers began openly exporting blackmarket-gold to India – in rapidly rising quantities. What is equally clear is that such open shipping of blackmarket-gold into India could not take place without a large quantity of willful blindness on the part of India’s government. The One Bank was exacerbating its problem of a growing blackmarket for gold in India (which it could not control), and a blackmarket price it could not control – which became/becomes more and more important as that blackmarket grows in size (in the world’s largest gold market). Meanwhile, it saw it that its (supposed) gold-embargo was becoming ever less-effective in its primary goal: reducing gold demand (in India). Essentially, the One Bank itself received a “lesson” in financial crime. In a world where the distinction between “crime” and “commerce” has nearly vanished (most-particularly in the Corrupt West) attempting to block the flow of the world’s most-coveted form of money is impossible – even for a crime syndicate of its own, near-omnipotence. https://bullionbullscanada.com/gold-commentary/26550-how-india-evaded-th...

I Run Bartertown
Aug 18, 2014 - 8:56am

Do the Right Thing

https://www.gofundme.com/SupportOfficerWilson

$6,750 of 10k

Raised by 195 people in 14 hours

Donate Now

lakedweller2
Aug 18, 2014 - 9:48am

Doctors

Doctors save the bad guys as well as the good guys. Couldn't take a case to court without a live victim saved in the ER.

Too bad the US Attorney's Office is selective on who it saves. Maybe they could learn something from doctors.

Sound Money Minnow
Aug 18, 2014 - 9:57am

StrondsideJedi pulling me back in for one more comment

Strongsidejedi,

You have me figured completely wrong. My comment about "people making an enemy of the police had better make friends with the criminals" doesn't mean I believe there should be a litmus test for receiving police protection. My point is when you have a police force afraid of every action they take, you create an apathetic police force that isn't confident and hampers crime fighting in the community they police. Most urban law enforcement officers don't live in the area they police, so the effects of passive policing actually hurt law abiding citizens, in the community being policed, the most.

Where did I say that the police officer in question shouldn't be investigated?

It is a rush to judgment that should be avoided. I am sorry that my own personal experience as a Police Sergeant doesn't fit neatly into a box, but your allegation that I may need mental health evaluation is an emotional over reaction on your part.

Thankfully we don't have the thought police yet.

I am retired, so I think I am entitled to an opinion. I started out this discussion being critical of police leadership in this matter. I am not asking for this cop to be given immunity. Is it not reasonable to assume any encounter with an armed officer has the potential to escalate into a deadly force situation. If I am biased it is that I know you would never survive through the police academy with racial hatred. That no cop in his right mind wishes to use deadly force. I have never fired my weapon at a citizen, and I thank God I never had to. I did have to kill an attacking dog once that was about to chomp on my private parts as I was retreating. I fired 4 rounds, a double tap, and two more when the dog was still attacking. This occurred so rapidly I had to check my magazine to see how many rounds I fired.

I respect the judicial system. I sometimes lack clarity when making a point. Not speaking face to face you lose understanding in interpretation.

I have great respect for the medical field. Thank you for your service. I am currently recovering from surgery for a distal bicep tendon rupture, and my typing is slow. Trust is important in law enforcement. I hold my head high with how I treated the men, and women, under me and the public I served. If we actually met in person I don't think you would walk away questioning my mental stability. I served 12 years in the military, and I am quite certain you likely have a higher IQ than me. I don't think I could have ever handled the stresses and rigorous discipline necessary to become a Medical Doctor. When I was getting put under by the physician for my procedure I couldn't help but admire the confidence and skills required to be in your profession.

Some of my rant was likely an over reaction. It is difficult being a first line supervisor in law enforcement. Trying to motivate your people when they know the more aggressive they are the more they will be scrutinized for their actions is the most difficult aspect of police leadership. Unfortunately urban centers have become mainly one party ruled bastions of political correctness that result in discouraged protectors of the peace that under react and this has the tendency to erode confidence in the police. That helps no one.

I am retired now, so rest assured even if my opinion is outside the mainstream I have no positional authority to abuse power, as I have none. I have no regrets for how I did my job, only thankfulness that I have been able to provide for my family. In todays times I would never recommend the profession. The State and Federal government are no longer leading with moral clarity. I wouldn't choose today to be an agent of a crony capitalist society, losing its sense of right and wrong.

Thank you again for what you do! Lord knows you folks are a highly respected, under compensated, special breed in my book.

I Run Bartertown
Aug 18, 2014 - 10:14am

In all the hubbub

Not enough of us have taken the time to mourn the loss of such an insightful lyricist. This was not merely the loss of one man. This is a blow to all of society and a detriment to all of us who seek cultural enrichment .

https://soopermexican.com/2014/08/15/listen-to-mike-browns-very-explicit...

“shit talker, shit talker, whatcha gonna do? when a real killa killa come for you?”

"With this Glock in your face
And you betta not make a sound
And I only like white men on my money [???]
Those who are last shall be first,
Whites on the bottom"

"This one specifically talks about killing people and how fun it is. The main rapper talks about how his favorite part of killing people is when they hit the ground."

Magpie
Aug 18, 2014 - 10:34am

timeline and eyewitness report

Ferguson police dispatch about the robbery and description of suspects was sent out 9 minutes prior to shooting. Google it...the timeline was posted on a non-American site. Anyone seen/heard that info from our LSM?

If you listen carefully you'll hear someone in the background. Listen, and make up your own minds. Starting at 6:28.

Video unavailable
Sound Money Minnow
Aug 18, 2014 - 10:50am

Posted in the vault...radio call in

It is coming out that the Officer was aware of the strong armed robbery before the fatal shooting.

https://www.971talk.com/blogs/dana-show-blog/audio-demand/exclusive-caller-claims-be-friends-darren-wilson-knows-his-side

More unconfirmed potential facts. This is why there should be no one sided rush to judgment.

Sound Money Minnow
Aug 18, 2014 - 11:19am

Toxicology Report

If per chance the victim of the Ferguson Police shooting were under the influence of something that caused him to make a fatal error in rushing an armed police officer ordering him to stop, does it make a difference?

Just asking. Since some on this thread feel the relevance of having just committed a strong armed robbery would be meaningless. This is why any action taken prior to a Grand Jury indictment is a rush to judgment. Facts, including a complete autopsy, must be considered.

So allowing lawlessness by an outraged community seeking a lynching isn't a proper path forward. Appeasement doesn't trump justice. The fact that we can no longer trust a Federal Judiciary to act with objectivity scares me. Eric Holder does not make me confident we won't have a judicial lynching if this action is deemed justifiable homicide by the state.

I am not trying to be sarcastic.

Hypothetically, if you were a police officer, attempting to apprehend a strong armed robbery suspect, is it reasonable to order the suspect to halt at gunpoint? If the perpetrator rushing you, knowing you are pointing a gun at him, continues to close the reactionary gap distance you have two choices to make in a split second: create distance or address the threat. Facing a large, irrationally acting person, armed or unarmed suspect, has escalated this to a deadly force encounter.

All this happening in mere seconds. What would you do?

My point is if the facts presented here were the case, should this ever rise to the level of a murder charge. Maybe I am biased, but in this case the victim would be equally responsible for his own death.

Chord
Aug 18, 2014 - 11:54am

Ferguson Mo. Spin

This story has been wildly spun by the MSM from the very beginning.

He was an 18 year old, 6’4” 296 lb. young MAN. Had he committed a crime, he would have been tried as an adult, but variations of the very misleading phrase “black teenager” are still being used.

Early reports of him being shot in the back with arms up in surrender are now belied by an examination that indicates all wounds were sustained from the front, and credible reports of him charging towards the officer.

My point here is that the MSM reports on the economy, PMs, Ukraine, and more are greeted with strong skepticism by most of the TFMR members........

But there are still a few here who will actually believe the breathless MSM reports on Furguson Mo. and indulge in premature, wild speculation based upon the media lies.

Stay skeptical, my friends.


Aug 18, 2014 - 12:10pm

PS national guard now

Read my comment earlier about the agenda here and tell me the National Guard being used doesn't fit perfectly with that agenda. So transparent to those who have eyes to see.


Aug 18, 2014 - 12:18pm

Shot from the front

SSJ is now trying to convince us he is Quincy. But he is clearly coming from emotion. I appreciate the passion, it comes from the heart, but I am not convinced.

The initial narrative said Brown was shot in the back. Now we know for sure he was shot from the front and mostly in the arm.

lakedweller2
Aug 18, 2014 - 1:01pm

Use of Deadly Force

Usually pretty well defined when it is proper and when it is criminal.

Libero
Aug 18, 2014 - 3:46pm

Bartertown

Money won't save him.

Sound Money Minnow
Aug 18, 2014 - 3:46pm

Stephanie is right on for anyone taking an objective look

Read her posts. Stephanie is on to something.

Libero
Aug 18, 2014 - 3:50pm

Double standards USA

I don't know what the open carry laws are in Missouri, but what would happen if all these protesters showed up carrying rifles and sidearms like in the Bundy cattle grazing demonstration???

Just thinkin'

I Run Bartertown
Aug 18, 2014 - 4:07pm

Double Standards Mother Nature

Well, they'd start shooting each other, of course.

Just answerin'

PS I hat tipped you for the suggestion. And can the funding come out of some other social program, or will your initiative require a new tax?

Libero
Aug 18, 2014 - 4:13pm

The feds backed down

but not this time I guess.

Initiative??? Huhhh?


Aug 18, 2014 - 4:41pm

cattle grazing vs. looting

Let's be fair - the Bundy supporters were not fighting for the right to loot and pillage local businesses. They were not trying to destroy anything. They simply supported the right of Bundy to have his cattle graze on open land that had been used by his family for generations.

Contribute

Donate Shop

Get Your Subscriber Benefits

Exclusive discount for silver purchases, and a private iTunes feed for TF Metals Report podcasts!

Key Economic Events Week of 4/22

4/22 10:00 ET Existing Home Sales
4/23 10:00 ET New Home Sales
4/25 8:30 ET Durable Goods
4/26 8:30 ET Q1 GDP first guess

Key Economic Events Week of 4/15

4/16 9:15 ET Cap Util and Ind Prod
4/17 8:30 ET Trade Deficit (Feb)
4/17 10:00 ET Wholesale Inventories
4/18 8:30 ET Retail Sales (March)
4/18 8:30 ET Philly Fed
4/18 10:00 ET Business Inventories (Feb)
4/19 8:30 ET Housing Starts and Building Permits

Key Economic Events Week of 4/1

4/1 8:30 ET Retail Sales (Feb)
4/1 9:45 ET Markit & ISM Manu PMIs
4/1 10:00 ET Construction Spending (Feb)
4/1 10:00 ET Business Inventories (Jan)
4/2 8:30 ET Durable Goods (Feb)
4/3 9:45 ET Markit & ISM Services PMIs
4/5 8:30 ET BLSBS

Recent Comments

by NW VIEW, Apr 24, 2019 - 10:05pm
by lakedweller2, Apr 24, 2019 - 9:53pm
by AngryCitizen, Apr 24, 2019 - 8:30pm
by imfd, Apr 24, 2019 - 8:25pm
by mgilbert, Apr 24, 2019 - 7:42pm
by Marchas45, Apr 24, 2019 - 7:28pm