It seems like everybody is talking about this article, which claims to be written by an insider in the Trump administration who is part of a resistance. The main thing people are trying to ascertain is who wrote it.
Since everybody else is speculating on the matter, I might as well join the fun. Do you know who I think wrote it? Trump (or somebody on Trump’s team).
As the saying goes, there’s no such thing as bad publicity and Trump is, if nothing else, a master at marketing himself. This article, and by extent Trump’s name, has reached the front page of every major newspaper and news website. It’s being discussed on all of the major news channels. Avoiding hearing discussion about it is practically impossible. It’s a great marking piece and probably the easiest way to get free advertising from pretty much everybody.
I would like you to read this story and ask yourself, what do you think would happen to you if you were in Ryan Haass’ position:
On Sunday, Feb. 11 after leaving the Tippy Canoes bar in Osceola, Wis., Haass drove off the road and abandoned his car in a ditch. He left the scene of the accident and later claimed he continued drinking at home.
Surveillance video from the bar in Osceola, obtained by the FOX 9 Investigators, shows Haass spent the afternoon drinking, consuming at least three beers and four Long Island iced teas.
When the officer asked Haass what he was drinking, he said, “Hey, stop there. I know why you are asking these questions and I’m not saying any more.”
When the officer asked Haas to perform a field sobriety test, he refused and said, “What is the point? I will not perform the test. Now what are you going to do?”
Osceola Police Chief Ron Pedrys was monitoring the situation that night and told Fox 9 that without a field sobriety test, the officer did not have probable cause to arrest Haass.
In this age where drunk driving is probably considered the same as murder to most people, how did Haass manage to get away with this? Why wasn’t he arrested and taken to the station to be blood tested when he refused to perform a field sobriety test? Because Haass happens to be a law enforcer himself.
Power comes with privileges such as professional courtesy. Law enforcers often extend a great deal of courtesy to each other that they won’t extend to regular schmucks like you and me. If one officer pulls another over for speeding, they’ll often pretend that the situation never occurred. If one officer finds that another is in possession of illegal narcotics, they’ll often pretend that they didn’t see anything. And if one officer suspects that another was driving while intoxicated, they often won’t force a sobriety or blood test.
Rules are for little people, not the king’s men.
Evidence to be used in the prosecution of Officer Noor is starting to be revealed. The evidence released so far includes excepts from a psychological assessment and a rather telling past interaction he had with a member of the public:
During Noor’s 2015 psychological evaluation, he self-reported that “… he disliked people, disliked being around people, and was disinterested in interacting with people,” according to department documents cited by prosecutors.
Why would the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) continue to employee Noor if he admitted he disliked people and wasn’t interested in interacting with them? If you’re in the job of law enforcement, you’re going to be interacting with members of the public. But if that wasn’t enough to justify terminating Noor, this should have been:
Months before Damond was killed, Noor pulled over a driver who failed to use his turn signal and “the first thing he did was point his gun at the driver’s head,” prosecutors said, citing police records they reviewed.
Don’t get me wrong, I despise people who fail to use their turn signals as much as the next guy. However, I wouldn’t go so far as to put a gun to somebody’s head because they failed to indicate their turn. In fact if I were charged with hiring officers and one of them did that, I’d terminate their ass immediately.
If nothing else, the evidence presented so far raises some questions about MPD’s personnel practices.
Whenever I point out that laws are violence and that law enforcers will escalate even minor transgressions against the law to lethal force, some statist will rebut by asking, “When’s the last time somebody was killed over a traffic ticket?” The answer to that is, just a few months ago:
Locked away in the Mineral County Jail for failing to take care of her traffic tickets, 27-year-old Kelly Coltrain asked to go to the hospital. Instead, as her condition worsened, she was handed a mop and told to clean up her own vomit. She died in her jail cell less than an hour later.
Despite being in a video-monitored cell, Mineral County Sheriff’s deputies did not recognize that Coltrain had suffered an apparent seizure and had not moved for more than six hours. When a deputy finally entered her cell and couldn’t wake her, he did not call for medical assistance or attempt to resuscitate her. Coltrain lay dead in her cell until the next morning when state officials arrived to investigate.
Are the officers who, probably literally, watched her die in their cage facing punishment? You probably already know the answer to that question:
The investigators also asked the Mineral County District Attorney to consider criminal charges in the case, after finding evidence the Mineral County Sheriff’s Office may have violated state laws prohibiting inhumane treatment of prisoners and using one’s official authority for oppression.
To avoid a conflict of interest, the investigation was forwarded to Lyon County District Attorney Stephen Rye for review. Rye declined to press charges in the case.
“The review of the case, in our opinion, did not establish any willful or malicious acts by jail staff that would justify the filing of charges under the requirements of the statute,” Rye said.
I guess locking somebody in a cage, refusing them medical care when it was obvious there was something seriously wrong, handing them a mop after they suffered a seizure and telling them to clean up the mess, and failing to even attempt to resuscitate them when they ceased responding to stimuli isn’t “willful of malicious” behavior… at least when you wear a badge.
Although I heap a lot of deserved criticism on law enforcers, they aren’t the only bad actors in the State. Part of the reason there are so many bad law enforcers is because those tasked with overseeing them fail to hold the bad actors responsible. Prosecutors, for example, regularly refuse to bring charges against law enforcers even when handed a mountain of evidence indicating that they did something heinous. If by some miracle a bad law enforcer is taken to court and found guilty of a crime, judges will often hand out a lenient sentences in “recognition of their years of service to the community.” This creates an environment that is a magnet for bad actors. A person with violent urges looks at a situation like this and realizes that they can get away with acting on their urges if they become a cop.
So long as the entire system refuses to punish law enforcers who act in bad faith, the profession will continue to attract the lowest humanity has to offer.
A bunch of conservatives threw a tantrum because Nike chose an individual who failed to stand during prayers to skycloth as its mascot. While a bunch of triggered snowflakes cutting up their socks and burning their shoes is mildly entertaining, this has the potential to be extremely entertaining:
Ford, (F)a sponsor of the National Football League, has voiced support for NFL players exercising their right to free speech and peaceful protest after President Donald Trump urged fans to consider a boycott.
“We respect individuals’ rights to express their views, even if they are not ones we share,” the company said on Monday. “That’s part of what makes America great.”
Queue a bunch of triggered conservatives burning their Ford F-150s.
Yeah, I know it won’t happen. Virtue signalling only goes so far. Some people may be willing to cut up a $10 pair of socks or even burn an old pair of shoes to demonstrate their virtuousness, but few are willing to destroy a vehicle worth tens of thousands of dollars to show the world how much they love the skycloth.
Bernie Sanders has been standing on his high horse condemning companies for paying their employees the same amount he pays his interns at least since he entered politics. One of his primary targets as of late has been Amazon. Why? Because Amazon is a household name and nobody has ever gained political fame by going after a company that nobody has heard of. In his crusade to convince companies to pay their employees more than he pays his interns, Bernie has introduced legislation which, if nothing else, should receive in award for best convoluted acronym:
Sanders’ Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act (abbreviated “Stop BEZOS”)…
It’s too bad the ability to create clever acronyms wasn’t a more marketable skill because if it were, whichever intern came up with that one would have a promising career ahead of them.
What may be even more noteworthy than the acronym itself is the target. The name of this legislation makes it obvious that it’s a personal attack against Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos. The reason this is noteworthy is because it demonstrates that the myth that democratic governments are a neutral party is false. No government has ever been neutral. They always have a list of targets. However, democratic ones usually try to maintain a thin veneer of neutrality.
It appears as though the confirmation hearing for the new Supreme Court justice went well:
The confirmation hearing for US President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee has descended into “mob rule”, a Republican senator said.
John Cornyn of Texas spoke out as Democrats demanded an adjournment. Seventy people were arrested as protesters interrupted the proceedings.
Brett Kavanaugh faces four days before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
If approved, the conservative appeals court judge would be expected to tilt the court’s balance to the right.
Minutes after Mr Kavanaugh, 53, entered the committee rooms on Tuesday, the hearing was disrupted by angry shouts from members of the public and lawmakers alike.
Shenanigans like this, where groups of people attempt to shutdown proceedings by screaming, seem to be becoming more common in this country. I can’t help but think that this is due to the fact that no mechanism exists today for resolving major political disagreements. This wasn’t always the case.
Long ago in this nation’s history there was a contentious president named Alexander Hamilton. He had a major disagreement with another politician named Aaron Burr.
That disagreement never devolved into public display of stupidity like that witnessed at this confirmation hearing though. Do you know why? Because there was a mechanism in place that allowed people like Hamilton and Burr to resolve their disagreements with each other in an unambiguously way.
What I’m saying is, there is an obvious solution to this country’s political disagreements.
Bring back dueling.
Bail is an old concept that allows individuals accused of a crime to avoid the pretrial punishment of rotting in a cage. The idea is that an individual hands over a substantial stake (along with travel documents such as passports) that will be returned when they show up for their trial date. Simple enough, right? Not so much. Since bail is set by bureaucrats of the court, a court that wants to punish somebody who hasn’t yet been found guilty of a crime can do so by setting a suspect’s bail absurdly high. The government of California decided that this practice was unfair and chose to eradicate it. However, as is always the case with government, there’s a catch:
California will end the cash bail system in a sweeping reform for the state. Rather than requiring defendants to pay in order to be released before trial, their release will hinge on an assessment of their risk to public safety.
“Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly,” Gov. Jerry Brown said in a statement.
By rich and poor being treated fairly, Governor Brown means they will all have their fate solely in the hands of a board of bureaucrats. In other words, nothing has changed. Now, instead of setting bail absurdly high, bureaucrats of the court merely need to claim that an individual is too dangerous to be allowed to roam free if they want to punish them before their trail.
Nike announced its new mascot, Colin Kaepernick. Since Kaepernick made a name for himself by failing to stand during prayers to skycloth, a lot of conservatives are upset with Nike and have chosen to make Nike feel their impotent rage:
Following the announcement, the hashtags #BoycottNike and #JustBurnIt started trending on Twitter and shares started falling. Some angry consumers even posted photos and videos of themselves burning their Nike shoes and other gear to protest the company using the divisive figure in its 30th anniversary ad campaign.
I ask you this, is there a more useless way to protest a company than destroying your own property? I can’t think of one. If you purchase a pair of Nike shoes and later burned them, it doesn’t hurt Nike one bit, the company already has your money.
With that said, I am glad that Nike chose Kaepernick as its mascot, not because I feel that a backup quarterback best represents the company but because the memes that have sprung forth have been solid gold! This one is my favorite so far: