Allegation: Waco police made no effort to aid injured in motorcycle meet shooting
There should be enough witnesses and video to confirm what he is claiming, and if it can be confirmed, there should be charges brought against the police. It's one thing to shoot someone -- even several someones -- because you thought they presented a danger to you. Even if you found out shortly after that that you were wrong. That can be an honest mistake, and should carry consequences, but may not amount to murder.
It's quite another thing to then let that person die in order to avoid being sued for your mistake. That particular tactic is absolutely disgusting and should be grounds for murder charges in itself. (Proving it would be a challenge, but in the day of omnipresence video recordings, proof is beginning to become a possibility). And this is far from the first time I've read reports that it happened. Letting people die is not an acceptable police tactic.
Funny, I don't recall Obama mentioning that the FBI would stop processing NICS appeals in his list of executive actions. But if they do, I think this is something we can sue on and win. Denial of a fundamental right without due process seems like something even the recently cowardly Supreme Court could handle.
Did Trump win or lose by leaving the debate stage?
Lots of people are saying the telecast was a Big Success without Trump. Other people are saying that they lost half their viewers compared to the first Republican debate this year. Who's right? Well, technically both claims are true; it's a question of which spin the speaker is trying to put on the information. Let's look at the actual context. For the purposes of this post I'm going to trust the Wikipedia numbers:
OK, so the first debate numbers to the last debate numbers did drop by almost half. But they did that over the course of 7 debates. The big drop occurred after the 2nd debate (9 million fewer people tuned in for the 3rd debate than the 2nd debate). Debate 5 was an outlier that jumped back up; 6 and 7 were consistent with most of the previous results. If anything, Trump's absence slightly reversed a downwards trend. We can only guess at causation for those numbers, of course, but viewer count was trending mostly down with a small blip up for the last debate (and a much larger blip up for debate 5).
So, if your measure of winning or losing is how many people watched compared to previous debates, or the trend of people watching with or without Trump, Trump lost. About the same number of people showed up as had been showing up before. And maybe a few more showed up because Trump wasn't there. Maybe.
I'll note that a declining trend is common for situations like this. People lose interest in watching the same group of (frankly, mostly boring) people say basically the same things on basically the same topics over and over. For most people, you watch until you make up your mind, but only political junkies keep tuning in for 6 or 7 debates (remember, that's probably 20-30 hours of programming if you count the mini-dates too).
So the declining interest is normal, and in context with the other debate numbers, removing Trump from the debates didn't move the needle much.
I don't have numbers for Trump's competing event in front of me. I've seen reports that he did not match or beat the debate numbers, but (right now) I have no idea if it was by a lot or a little or just not yet confirmed. We'll see, or I'll find numbers before I post...
If he's referring to stuff like BlackLivesMatter increasing tensions between police and certain segments of the community, maybe he has a point. Especially if those tensions result in decreased police presence and investigation. But really, this is Chicago we're talking about here. The city has a problem even if you take social media out of the picture completely.
Bill Quick at Daily Pundit has been pretty much all Trump all the time for the past few months. Fair enough; clearly the man knows where he stands and there are a number of points we agree on. However, a lot of his posts have the following quality to them lately:
He may be right. Trump may win Iowa. Trump may win the nomination, and Trump may win the presidency. I don't know. The polls do suggest Trump has a pretty good chance of doing at least the first and maybe the second. (We're way too far ahead to predict the third).
But I don't pick the candidates I support based on who I think will win. I pick the candidates I support based on their positions on issues, what I think they will do in office, and whether I can trust them to follow through on their promises competently. Popularity has little to do with it, and polls even less. I pick the candidate I think would be the best President, and I do my damnedest to make sure they win.
The endless poll following is not persuasive and is getting a bit tiresome.
Study on genetically-modified crops being investigated for faked data
The left has co-opted science to serve their political causes. Until scientists rediscover the importance of honesty and ethics, science as a whole will continue to lose credibility. Which is a shame, because science done properly is extremely useful and important.
They are still doing it. In the gun control debate we call it astroturf -- fake grass roots. They do it, ironically, on campaign finance reform. They do it on illegal immigration. The unions do it with paid protesters and picket lines. Planned Parenthood does it on abortion funding. It was practically the whole reason that ACORN existed.
The left funds their activism organizations through government and infiltrates their operatives into media organizations. Other activists extort funds for their political activities through pressuring corporations for donations, sometimes with the Justice Department and other regulators as active partners.
The main takeaway is that for many on the left, politics is their job. Those of us on the right who prefer limited government have to maintain real jobs and advocate on our own time.
It's unclear from the article if the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of the injunction itself or the merits of the case, but it seems like the merits. And presidential spokespuppy John Earnest seems to be very excited by the decision, meaning that Obama plans to pull out his blackmail pen to ensure the ruling goes his way.
Even if it does, the decision will only be in place for about 6 months. After that, there will be a new president who can reverse it. A Republican president might, a Democrat almost certainly won't. So Obama will push as hard as he can to get as many people through this program as possible, but with only 6 months to work with, he's not likely to be able to make a tremendous impact even if the Supreme Court legitimatizes his overreach...
... unless he's ordered the appropriate agencies to ignore the court order and proceed to make preparations in the year or so since the injunction.
That's the one that belongs in your holster or slung over your shoulder.
When two cartridges of different calibers are stored in the same drawer for long enough, they breed, and the children leave the nest...
And she's RIGHT! You are about to turn her world upside down! Take her concerns seriously. Sit down with her and explain that you are moving, that all the boxes with her stuff in it will be in the new house, and that everything will be ok. She will look at you and meow, and you will feel better. Eventually.
How do we know the police shot first? The article doesn't say anyone died UPDATE: One person was died and another wounded, but if the protesters were planning to shoot first they would all be dead.
On a more serious note, I'm glad the absurd "occupy national park" scenario is over, with minimal loss of life. I hope the police were all wearing body cameras during that traffic stop, though, because I am pretty damn sure it was one of those "random" traffic stops like the ones the NSA tells the DEA to make.
Patterico is also curious, and as a prosecutor, he has some expertise in these matters. I can understand that an arrest like this would be a very tense situation. But I find it interesting that police aren't reporting that the people they arrested were armed, and that there are claims the person killed (and also the one injured) was cooperating.
I'm not prepared to say this was an execution, but I'd like to see body camera and dash camera footage if it is available.
I would have expected this from the Travis county prosecutors, who have an existing reputation as political lunatics who abuse their office. I have no idea how often a grand jury brings charges against someone the prosecutor did not intend, but given the common example of indicting a ham sandwich, I suspect it's not often and this outcome was the intended result no matter how much claimed surprise is involved.
And it seems my suspicions were well grounded:
That strikes me as an excellent explanation for the outcome, as well as a potential ethics problem.
There are solid First Amendment arguments against charging journalists who conduct undercover investigations, of course. But even if the charges are thrown out during a trial, there's a definite chilling effect on conservative advocacy journalism.