Saturday, 29 October 2011


Lamar Smith leads another assault on liberty

It’s Lamar Smith, again!  Dept.
Radley Balko:
The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill yesterday [October 6] that would make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities on foreign soil that, if carried out in the U.S., would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) — even if the planned activities are legal in the countries where they’re carried out.  The new law, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA...
"Cornellian,” commenting at Volokh:
...This statute would make it a criminal offense to have this conversation in the United States:
Friend 1:  Hey, let’s go to Amsterdam and smoke weed where it’s legal!
Friend 2:  Great idea! I’m in! (agreement)
Friend 1:  Lemme check airfare on Expedia. (overt act)
"LaSuthenboy,” commenting at PJ Tattler:
This is exactly the kind of crap that gives the left fodder for going after the right, exactly the kind of behavior that drives people away from conservatism; minding other people’s business...  This busybody BS from Republicans feeds the growth of the busybody left.

It is perfectly rational and sane to make illegal the plotting of illegal activities over the border.  But, to specifically include activities legal over the border is just another grab for power for the government.  Right or Left, the ultimate goal is to eventually have laws governing everything you do or think, down to the hours you sleep and your breaths per minute.

Lamar Smith and every representative that was party to this needs to be held by the scruff of the neck and chased around in circles with a hickory stick until he can’t sit down for a week while having the first amendment read to them over and over….with a bullhorn.
We’ve noticed Lamar Smith before.  He’s the guy who wanted to apply civil forfeiture to copyright enforcement (so the RIAA could confiscate your computer).  And who thought it would be a good idea to require anyone operating a WIFI access point maintain two years worth of user records in the name of "aiding police investigations.”

So we know what Smith is about, and it’s not about individual liberty.  It’s probably too much to ask the Republicans to read Smith out of the party; what’s less understandable is whythehell supposedly freedom-loving Texans keep re-electing him.

Naming names:

H.R.313, the "Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011.”
Sponsor:  Lamar Smith [R-TX]
Co-Sponsor:  Adam B. Schiff [D-CA]

Unlike most legislation, the effect of this two-page bill would seem easily understandable by anybody (except possibly its sponsor[1]): It adds this paragraph to Section 406 of the (existing) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 846):
Whoever, within the United States, conspires with one or more persons, or aids or abets one or more persons, regardless of where such other persons are located, to engage in conduct at any place outside the United States that would constitute a violation of this title if committed within the United States, shall be subject to the same penalties that would apply to such conduct if it were to occur within the United States.
Simple, direct, obvious... right?  No exception for legal conduct, and no excuses for voting for it, either.

Vote:  October 6, 2011: Order to report as amended, passed 20-7
Republicans voting yes:
Sandy Adams [FL]
Mark Amodei [NV]
Steve Chabot [OH]
J. Randy Forbes [VA]
Trent Franks [AZ]
Elton Gallegly [CA]
Bob Goodlatte [VA]
Trey Gowdy [SC]
Tim Griffin [AR]
Darrel Issa [CA]
Steve King [IA]
Tom Marino [PA]
Ben Quayle [AZ]
Dennis Ross [FL]
James Sensenbrenner [WI]
Lamar Smith [TX]

Republicans not voting:
Jason Chaffetz [UT]
Howard Coble [NC]
Louie Gohmert [TX]
Jim Jordan [OH]
Daniel Lungren [CA]
Mike Pence [IN]
Ted Poe [TX]

No Republicans voted "No”.

In fact, there’s even less than no excuse:  Before the order to report was voted, Robert C. Scott [D-VA] offered an amendment that would have fixed the problem:
Page 2, line 16, after "that" insert "is a criminal offense in the place where the conduct occurrs and".
The committee REJECTED Scott’s amendment, 11-3.

So Mr. Scott tried again, this time eliminating prosecution for de minimis offenses:
...insert "punishable by a term of inprisonment greater than 20 years" after "violation of this title"
That one was voted down 11-12

So: Every Republican who voted for this bill had been made aware that there was a problem, and chose to ignore it.  Lamar and his Gang of 15 (Republicans, plus 4 Democrats) have a bunch of explaining to do.


[1] Related (added 111030 20:15):
Techdirt:  Smith Was Against Massive Regulatory Compliance The Day Before He’s For It
Kinda makes you wonder if he even understands the legislation he’s introducing.

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 20:31:46 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 820 words, total size 11 kb.

Tuesday, 25 October 2011


More mush, this time from the candidates

From Mitt Romney, the expected:

"I don’t know on which issue I’m not conservative,” he told Sean Hannity in a radio interview...  "I think my record is as conservative as you’ll find..”

Romney did identify one way in which he differs from some of his GOP rivals: "I may not be as incendiary or outlandish in rhetoric.
To which Smitty replies
Shag your rhetoric, mister: it’s your results that have people wondering...
And from Rick Perry, the disappointing:
My Tax and Spending Reform Plan

ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley must be quickly repealed…
Why only "section 404,” Mr. Candidate?  What’s so special about the rest of SarBox that it deserves to survive?
and, if necessary, replaced
No.  Right there, you accept defeat.

NONE of these laws were ever "necessary.”  By allowing that possibility, you imply that as President you’d be just fine with the usual beltway-driven tinkering and no-results cleverness instead of achieving what we need now: the outright obliteration of the federal programs and regulations that are eating our economy alive.

"MReed53:”  Romney: The Bill of Particulars
As for what "I don’t know on which issue I’m not conservative,” let me count the ways...

Romney and Smitty links via (and my remarks cross-posted at) Daily Pundit.

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 18:09:13 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 4 kb.

Monday, 22 August 2011


Wrong hat

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor delivers more mush for the rubes:

...This fall the Republican Party will pursue a legislative agenda that boosts economic growth through reducing the regulatory and tax burden.
Gee Eric, too bad you didn’t start pushing that agenda last fall.  Why, we might even be out of the deprecession by now!
We will make sure...
("We will make sure...” Pretty confident, aren’t-cha?  Does that include the "we only control one-half of one-third of the government” gang?)
...that Washington policies are less restrictive to businesses small and large.
"Less restrictive,” the man says.  Well, I guess that being strangled with a noose beats being garotted with a wire, but personally I was hoping for more of a "dynamiting barriers” approach...
Our goals...
(That’s better. You don’t have to actually achieve "goals.”)
...include repealing the "3 percent withholding rule”...
The item that’s atop everyone’s list, I’m sure.

(Why, every morning, right after I pour my first coffee, I think: "If I were in charge, what one thing could I do that would get the economy off stall and allay everyone’s worries about the future?  I know:  I’d repeal the 3 percent withholding rule!  That’ll show ’em!  Just watch!  (Now, wotthehel is the ‘3 percent withholding rule’, anyway?)...”

(Pssst... Hey Eric.  Which of your campaign contributors asked for that one?   No, no... it’s O.K., man...)
...which serves as an effective tax increase on those who do business with the government...
Y’know, just a thought, but while you’re at it maybe you could try making it less expensive to do business- period.  Just a thought!
...and overturning the EPA’s proposed regulations that inhibit jobs in areas as varied as cement and farm dust.
The House has the power to bring those regulations to a halt instantly: Defund ’em.  But do you guys have the nerve?  Hah!
We plan...
And we know all about "the best-laid plans...” prevent the NLRB from inhibiting where a business chooses to create jobs.
Answer:  Defund them, too.  (But what am I thinking!)
...We were elected to change the way Washington does business and spends money.
"...and so far, we haven’t delivered squat.  But hope (and promises) spring eternal:  ‘This Time For Sure!  Presto!’”


Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 22:39:41 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 5 kb.

Sunday, 31 July 2011


Toward a government of men...

"Discretionary” "Justice”  Dept
In response to last weekend’s Wall Street Journal article As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Ensnared, a law professor writes:
...You suggest that it is "increasingly easy for Americans to end up on the wrong side” of a "balloon[ing]” body of federal criminal law.  What you fail to discuss is the prosecutorial discretion imbedded in our criminal justice system.  Not every violation of criminal law brought to the attention of law enforcement authorities results in an indictment...  I suspect that in each of the cases [cited in the article] the prosecutors had reasons beyond the surface elements of the crimes... for commencing the particular prosecution.  I also suspect that in each of their jurisdictions many more instances of similar conduct were resolved civilly or not pursued at all.

The real question, in my view, isn’t wheher Congress has criminalized innocent behaviour, but whether prosecutors are exercising their discretion properly...
Prof. R. Michael Cassidy
Boston College Law School
Newton, Mass.
Prof. Cassidy writes as if the "many more instances” being "not pursued” is a good thing.  He’s wrong.  Every violation of the law "brought to the attention of law enforcement authorities” that does not lead to prosecution takes us one step closer to a "government of men, not laws,” in which there will be one law for the elite and connected, and another law for the targeted (and the rest of us).   The only barrier:  The good behaviour of men who, after all, are not only lawyers but also politicians.

That Cassidy sees the question of "whether Congress has criminalized innocent behaviour” as less important than whether prosecutorial discretion is being "properly” exercised may stem from confidence that a J.D. (Harvard) "Masonic handshake” will protect him from the "ballooning law + prosecutorial malice” mousetraps that lie in wait for the rest of us.  But circumstances have a way of changing; just ask Martha Stewart.

Outside reading (HT for some: Instapundit):

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 21:03:32 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 6 kb.

Friday, 15 July 2011


The Establishment is heard from

Megan McArdle, concern troll:

Jonathan Podhoretz reads a Quinnipiac poll showing that by a margin of 48-34, the public is going to blame Republicans and not Obama if we don't raise the debt ceiling, and joins the ranks of the Washington sellouts:
At some point, those who believe it will be acceptable to go to August 3 without an increase in the debt limit, as well as those who believe the politics favor the Republicans, are going to have to reckon with the fact that there are no data points supporting their beliefs.
Wrongo, Jonny Boy.  I’ll see your poll, and raise you one.  Here’s Gallup:
Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure.
A follow-up question finds Americans more sympathetic to the Republicans’ argument than Obama’s.  Specifically, when asked to say which is their greater concern, 51% say raising the debt ceiling without plans for major future spending cuts concerns them more, while 32% are more concerned with the risk of a major economic crisis if Congress does not take action.
...and here’s Gallup, again:
Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the "Republican Party’s candidate for president” than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%.  Preferences had been fairly evenly divided [earlier] this year...

Oh well, back to Megan:
I know I’m beating a dead horse at this point, but I continue to be mystified by what the base, the activists, and the politicians who are pushing the "no new revenue” stance hope to accomplish.
Stop the spending, maybe?  Get the budget under control?  Save the country?
Let’s start by pointing out the obvious: the Democrats do not show any signs of caving.
Therefore, Republicans are supposed to roll over?
They have offered what seem...
(note that word) be very attractive deals, and been turned down.  Think you’re going to get a more attractive deal?  Every time another poll like this comes out, your bargaining position gets worse.
According to...?

Anyway, Megan goes on to explain (at great length) why every last item in the current federal budget is absolutely untouchable, and that, regardless of what they do, Republicans will be "blamed" for whatever happens:
Voters are telling pollsters they’re going to blame the Republicans for the shutdown. And the spending cuts you're going to do won't even be that popular with the tea party, who aren’t much more enthusiastic about Medicare/Medicaid cuts than the rest of the country.
Winding up with the Horrible Conclusion;
To me that sounds like "huge Democratic victory in 2012".
Oh dear.  Its hopeless.  Why, if only those Republicans understood what is possible, if only they knew their place.  The whole situation is unsolvable, so might as well give it up.

Sound familiar?

It should.  What’s going on here is that we’re starting to hear (indirectly) from what used to be called the "Eastern Establishment:” all those individuals and groups whose income or existence leeches off an ever-expanding federal government.  You know: The beltway lobbyists and their clients, the "independent" groups that trade government grants for agitation for more government power,[1] the corporations protected by a webs of regulations... those guys.  They’re worried that any move toward a smaller, less intrusive federal government could mean loss of their perks, bennies, and power[2] and right now protecting those perks, bennies, and power means convincing the Republicans to - again- forget their principles and cut another good old Standard D.C. Compromise, i.e., Give the Democrats What They Want.  So they’re calling on their beltway-press buddies to help.  And so we’re seeing pieces like Megan’s.

The perennial question of why on earth the Republican party should be taking advice from a press that is increasingly an arm of the Democrat party is above my pay grade (for today), but from my seat out here in the heartland it sure looks like "Republican intransigence” is excactly what the public is asking for, and the presidential polling is reflecting it.

Now if only the Republicans can figure that out...


Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 17:29:45 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 717 words, total size 8 kb.

Wednesday, 13 July 2011


When they come looking for contributions, better hang on to your wallet...

Republican FAIL, cont’d.  Dept
NRSC Press Release:
National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) Chairman U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) today announced that businesswoman and civic leader Carly Fiorina will join the organization as a Vice Chair for the 2012 election cycle.

Serving alongside Cornyn and NRSC Vice Chairman U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Fiorina will amplify Senate Republicans’ focus on healing America’s troubled economy, and assist with the NRSC’s crucial fundraising efforts in support of a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.
Cornyn, Fiorina, and Hatch(Oh hell, here’s a link for both Cornyn and Hatch!)  Hey, what could go wrong?

Via R.S.McCain, who notes Fiorina’s astounding record of success:
In 2010, a year when Republicans were winning a nationwide landslide, Carly Fiorina pissed away $21.5 million — including more than $5 million of her own money — and lost to Barbara Boxer by a 10% margin.
Can you say, "sinecure for another failed Gentry RINO”?  I thought you could.

Now try "Republicans take Senate in 2012”?  With this crew (could we call ’em "The Three Stooges”?) in charge, that’s a bit harder, isn’t it?

UPDATE (110715 17:00):  Welcome Daily Pundit readers!


Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 22:54:31 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 5 kb.

Thursday, 07 July 2011


Here comes the cave

The Hill:

House Republicans on Wednesday showed a new willingness to talk about closing tax loopholes
caving in to the Democrats ( FIFY)
in the context of negotiations to raise the nation’s $14.3 billion debt ceiling.

The signal was made by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the man who left debt talks led by Vice President Biden two weeks ago...
...and is a proud member of The 92 (which is all you need to know, really).
The GOP’s move was seen as a positive sign...
by Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself)
that a deal will be reached
taxes will be increased, while the deficit remains untouched ( FTFY,T)
"If the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll talk loopholes,” Cantor said, with one caveat: Any revenue gained from ending a tax break should be used to lower other taxes, the second-ranking House Republican said...
Yah, yah, yah... more RINO promises.  BTW, how’s that light bulb ban repeal goin’, Mister Majority Leader, hmmm?
That drew a sharp response from Democrats, who said the demand would prevent them from winning any deficit cuts through the elimination of tax loopholes.
To which, Bill Quick:
...Never, not once, not one single time have... tax increases ever resulted in those taxes being used to decrease the national debt.
But unlike elephants, RINOs never remember.

UPDATE: Bend over:
Hot Air:  Boehner: 50-50 shot at debt-ceiling deal in next 48 hours
Fox News:  Kyl: Republicans Agree to Revenue Increases in Deficit Talks
Red State:
The one thing I can guarantee is that any deal John Boehner cuts is going to punt the ball.
Big Journalism:  Reuters fabricates GOP compromise on tax hikes
Memo to Sen. Kyl:
...If it walks like a tax, and quacks like a tax, I don’t care if you call it a user fee all day long, it is a tax, and I say the hell with it.
(Hey look-a here: Recent.Kyl-isms!)

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 17:12:53 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 6 kb.

Wednesday, 22 June 2011


Here’s your “compromise,” Congressman Upton

All talk, no action  Dept
Hot Air:
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) today hinted at a possible agreement that would alter the ... 2012 phase-out of the incandescent light bulb.

At The Heritage Foundation’s Bloggers Briefing this afternoon, Heritage web editor Amy Payne directed a pointed question to the Congressman.  "Will we be able to keep our light bulbs?” she asked.

Upton’s answer was cryptic, but encouraging.  "That is an issue that is out there,” he said. "I’ve been working closely with [Rep.] Joe Barton [R-Tex.] and [Rep.] Mike Burgess [R-Tex.] and we’re very close to seeing an agreement merge and happen, so stay tuned. … A couple different things that we’re looking at. Just stay tuned in the next couple days, actually.  Maybe a little breaking news — well, let’s just say ‘soon.’ We’ve had some good conversations and we’ll see where we are later in the week.”
Excuse me, Congressman Fred, but your answer is 100% bullshit, and I am fed up with it.  It’s time you delivered some results:  Not hints, cryptic comments, or vague promises.
How friggin’ difficult is it to write a piece of legislation that repeals that portion of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007? ...  Upton’s making it out like he’s setting up the game plan for the Super Bowl. - "William Teach
If you really wanted repeal, congressman, you would have started here:
"Americans can buy, use, and manufacture whatever kind of light bulbs they want.”
I imagine that all of the necessary i-dotting and t-crossing would have taken about one page and about 30 minutes.

But instead it sounds as if congressional labors are going to bring us forth yet another chewing-gum-and-bailing-wire legislative mess.  That’s assuming we get any repeal at all.

Unsurprising from the man who thought sponsoring the original restrictions was a good idea. 

Can somebody primary this guy, please?

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 15:45:37 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 4 kb.

Tuesday, 14 June 2011


“Marketplace” confuses taxes, expense deductions, and subsidies

Not deliberately, I’m sure.

First we start with an inaccurate headline:

Congressional vote could end ethanol tax
Erm... no. Read your own first paragraph:
STEVE CHIOTAKIS: Meanwhile, tomorrow in the Senate, there'll likely be a vote on whether to end federal ethanol subsidies.
(Well, subsidies are just like taxes, right?  The money comes in, the money goes out, the music goes round‘n’round, yo-oh-oh-oh...)
The 45 cent a gallon tax credit for ethanol, the blended mixture of gasoline and corn, cost the federal government nearly $5.5 billion last year.  And the sponsor of the ethanol-scrapping amendment,
Quibble: Not "scrapping” ethanol, just the subsidy.

But we get the idea.  Onward!
...Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn, says that money is needed to help balance the budget.  But some conservative groups such as Americans for Tax Reform, headed by Grover Norquist, say ending the subsidies is like raising taxes.
Oh, come on.  This is totally disingenuous! The ATR wants to maintain subsidies?  Right!  Here’s what they actually have to say about ethanol:
...ATR is pleased to support Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment which ... fills in the gaps left by Senator Tom Coburn’s ethanol amendment...

The government’s mandate of ethanol usage distorts energy markets and raises prices for consumers.  In order to fully repeal the government’s unfair, anti-free market support of ethanol, all three policies must be eliminated—the mandate, the tax credit, and the tariff.  Only the combination of the Coburn and DeMint amendments completely kills the government’s support of the ethanol regime.

The DeMint amendment... insures that repealing the ethanol tax credit is done in a way that prevents additional money from flowing to the appropriations committees.  ATR has always opposed all forms of government support of ethanol.  Our goal has been to repeal the ethanol tax credit, tariffs and the mandate totally…without raising taxes.  The Coburn amendment, combined with the DeMint Amendment, accomplishes this longstanding goal.
Unpacking the verbiage, what the ATR seems to be worried about is any reduction in subsidy that is made without a corresponding tax cut.  But while ending subsidies alone may be "like” increasing taxes[1], that doesn’t mean that ATR opposes ending subsidies.  To imply such is to tell less than the whole truth.[2]

Now, back to our program:
Senator Coburn is with us on the phone to talk about the legislation. Good morning sir.

TOM COBURN: Good morning.

CHIOTAKIS: Why end the ethanol subsidy?

COBURN: Well first of all, we can’t afford it -- number one.  For the $6 billion that we will have paid out this year, we will have borrowed $2.5 billion from the Chinese to pay it.  Number two is we’re subsidizing the blending of ethanol.  We have a federal law that mandates they have to blend it anyway.  And oh by the way, they don
t want the money.  We have a letter from all the blenders saying, "We don’t need this money.”

CHIOTAKIS: So what’s been keeping the subsidy in place then?

COBURN: The farm belt legislators.

CHIOTAKIS: And this is all a political game do you think?

COBURN: Well, I don't know it's a political game.  You know, 40 percent of our corn is going to be used to make ethanol this year and yet, the price of food is skyrocketing.  And so we've created a false demand for this.  What we really need to do is utilize our own resources and [while] I’m not against ethanol, I just don't think we ought to necessarily incentivize it with our tax dollars.

CHIOTAKIS: And speaking of incentives, though, what about the subsidies that go to oil and gas producers as well.
"Subsidies” like allowed deductions for business expenses?  Exactly alike, right?  The money comes in, the money goes out, the music goes round‘n’round, yo-oh-oh-oh... and when the music stops, those eeevil corporations wind up with more than they deserve. No difference whatever!
COBURN: I think that's a legitimate point to raise, but there is no actual subsidy.
(See, he gets it.)
What there is tax expenditures that are not tax credits.
(Hold on, Senator, you’re borrowing Democrat rhetoric. And you shouldn’t. Repeat after me: "Letting taxpayers keep their own money is not an expenditure.” Once more: "Letting taxpayers keep their own money is not an expenditure.” Got it? Okay, now go and sin no more...)
We certainly shouldn’t subsidize with direct tax payer money to cause somebody to do something.  We don’t do that at all in the oil and gas industry.

CHIOTAKIS: Would you be in favor of re-looking at some of those oil and gas --

COBURN: What I want to do is look at the whole tax code because what we
ve done is we’ve misdirected capital in the tax code. And if in fact we change those things, what we'll see is we can lower tax rates and actually get more revenue for the federal government.

CHIOTAKIS: What about the critics who say, and by critics I’m talking about obviously Grover Norquist, saying the end of the ethanol subsidy is akin to a tax increase.
Ridiculous!  Even The Huffington Post managed to report Norquist’s position accurately, and that was back on March 29th!  What’s your problem?
COBURN: I don’t think anybody in America is going to believe that.  When we go borrow money to pay the largest oil companies in the country to blend ethanol into gasoline, that’s just not spending money that we could save.  And so I don’t think it has anything to do with being a tax increase.

CHIOTAKIS: Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, Senator thank you.

COBURN: You're welcome.

[1]  This curious language doesn’t help with understanding ATR’s position; even The Economist got confused:  See this post and its updates.

[2]  The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait offers an interesting take - just ignore all the "tax cuts for the rich” rhetoric - on the politics in motion here, specifically the interaction between Coburn and Norquist.  (HT: The Mello Guy)

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 00:39:17 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 971 words, total size 11 kb.

Thursday, 09 June 2011


Time to SWAT some government agencies

No-knock, who’s there?  Dept
Ask the question any way you want:
Why does the Department of Education need a SWAT team?
Why does the Department of Education need a SWAT team?
Why does the Department of Education need a SWAT team?

It’s still crazy.

Tam defines the issue (and go Read The Whole Thread):
Don’t get bogged down in the minutiae of who allegedly issued the warrant or what offense it was allegedly for. ... No doubt i’s were carefully dotted and t’s were painstakingly crossed on this gobsmackingly stupid raid.

The larger question is "Why does every federal agency need their own internal cop shop, to include SWAT teams, which they then have to use at the drop of a hat to justify funding?
Plus, the spread of police authority means less accountability combined with the greater likelihood of inexperienced "cops” killing innocent bystanders.

Not to mention that these "mistakes” never seem to have any consequences for the perpetrators or their superiors.

I can think of nothing whatever that the DoE might be investigating that would require a 6AM no-knock break-down-the-door raid.

Time for a departmental death penalty.

Hey Republicans!  You gonna do anything about this?

LATER:  And while you’re at it...

Story at the (U.K.) Daily Mail. (More news the make-believe media wont tell you.)
Matt Welch:
A Department of Education that's issuing search warrants is a Department of Education that deserves to be disbanded. A judge that approves a paramilitary-style dawn raid for a student loan search warrant is a judge that deserves to be disbarred.
Moe Lane: SWAT Team Raids by.. U.S. Department of Education.
...if Congressional Republicans are looking for some budget cuts, how about a rider banning any funding for armed agents at the Department of Education?

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 16:58:16 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 5 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
139kb generated in CPU 0.11, elapsed 0.2264 seconds.
57 queries taking 0.1331 seconds, 169 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.