Failures up and down the line. Rationalizations all over.

Protect Kids or Confiscate Guns? by Patrick J. Buchanan – “The perpetrator, the sick and evil 19-year-old who killed 17 innocents with a gun is said to be contrite.”

“Cruz’s punishment seems neither commensurate with his crimes nor a deterrent for sick and evil minds contemplating another Columbine.

It didn’t use to be this way.
With Cruz, the system failed up and down the line.
The anger and anguish of those who lost family or friends in this atrocity is understandable. But passion is not a substitute for thought.
Most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, where crazed men of murderous intent know their chances of maximizing the dead and wounded are far better than in attacking a police station.
The best way to protect kids in schools may be to protect schools, and run down and incarcerate the known criminals and crazies who are the primary threats.

Exposing the Deep Rot in the Deep State by Clarice Feldman – “Once again, the president has pried behind the stucco of the Deep State’s institutional edifice and shown that the pillars are termite-ridden.”

“In fact, there were four armed deputies at the Parkland, Florida high school, none of whom entered to intervene when the shooting occurred. Heroes like the JROTC students and the coach gave up their lives to protect others, while four armed cops did nothing to end the carnage.
After Columbine, the FBI training and tactical advice to local law enforcement officials was not to wait for a SWAT or tactical team to show up, but to immediately engage and disarm the shooter.
Local governments were rewarded with grants if they kept school arrests down, the cover being “let’s stop the pipeline from schools to prisons.” Without arrests, there was no record in background checks to keep violent people from having guns. It’s that simple: no matter what steps you put into place to prevent such things, if the procedure is corrupted, it won’t work.
If journalism awards were handed out to those who actually are engaged in journalism, Sundance would be getting one. Here are some of the things he turned up in his hard years long slogging through Broward and Miami-Dade Counties’ police practices and operations.
In time, the situation got so bad that to keep lowering their statistics, they were hiding evidence and failing to recover stolen merchandise because to return it would be to admit that the stuff was the fruit of criminal activity.

Criminal gangs soon realized that the way to avoid arrest was to recruit students to carry out their actions, and they also realized that when the quota for arrests near the end of the month was reached was the best time to get away with crimes.
This is the story worth telling, not the scripted anti-gun pap CNN offered up or the ten-minute hate town hall designed to play on your emotions while ignoring the truth. But only one blogger, Sundance, did the work to expose it.
The rest of the MSM seem to be fine with jeopardizing students’ lives, enabling criminals, and using public funds to advance the fortunes of Democrat candidates who allowed this tragedy to occur.

Assessing the new Democratic intel memo by Byron York – “FBI and DOJ officials did not ‘abuse’ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign,” the Democratic memo declares. (All emphases are in the original.)”

“In sum, it appears that of the four bullet points listed by Democrats to support the most important assertion in their memo, three would not be sufficient to win a warrant on Page, and the fourth is — yes — the unconfirmed allegations in the dossier. … We won’t know who is right definitively until the application is released to the public, but it seems hard to believe a warrant would have been approved absent the dossier’s allegations.

On to other parts of the Democratic memo. The next big point is a refutation of an assertion that Republicans did not make in their original memo.
So there it is. Yes, there were flaws in the original Republican memo, like failing to mention Carter Page’s history. But despite their early protests, Democrats have not come up with a terribly effective rebuttal.

What The Democrats Left Out Of Their Memo by Peter Hasson – “The Democrats’ memo, released on Saturday, claimed to refute a similar memo released on Feb. 2 by committee Republicans who alleged that the FBI and DOJ had abused the FISA system in obtaining the warrant.”

“Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell claimed earlier this month that Republicans had mischaracterized McCabe’s testimony. However, Democrats declined to directly refute that claim in their own memo.

Republicans noted several other omissions in their rebuttal to the Democratic memo.
“Amazingly, the Democrat memo does not contain a single reference to the DNC or Clinton campaign, or acknowledge that they funded the dossier, or admit that this information was not provided to the FISA Court.”

Doctor Hamburger Diagnoses a Malignant Administrative State by John Dale Dunn – “Any regular reader at American Thinker is aware of the rising concern about government overreach and amplified, expanded executive branch abuses and multi-agency multifarious misconduct.”

“Emblematic of the administrative state problem is the slow-rolling special counsel coup being orchestrated by intelligence and law enforcement agencies intent on overturning a presidential election, energized and perpetrated by human creatures in the embedded federal bureaucracy that occupies a wide swath of swampland on the Potomac River.
Phillip Hamburger, Friedman Professor of constitutional law at Columbia, reminded me of the problem of administrative law growth in America with his 2017 bite-sized 70-page book, The Administrative Threat, that summarizes the points of his magisterial and erudite 650-page 2014 book, Is the Administrative State Legal?
Hamburger writes a damning indictment of the administrative state, and he makes his case carefully and with attention to detail.

Is ‘Collusion with Russia’ Over? By Andrew C. McCarthy – “Mueller may be seeking to defend at least the investigative decisions made by the FBI and the Justice Department, institutions he served for many years.”

“Of course, “collusion with Russia” was the suspicion — or, skeptics would counter, the carefully crafted political narrative — that launched the Mueller investigation. So has the collusion theory been abandoned? Is the fundamental rationale for the Justice Department’s appointment of a special counsel, which has addled the Trump administration for seven months, now a big “Never mind”?

I don’t think so. At least, I don’t think that’s the way Mueller is looking at it.
Still, that does not mean he has entirely given up the quest. At the very least, I believe, Mueller intends to demonstrate that FBI and Justice Department suspicions about possible collusion were reasonable, even if there is no criminal case to be made against the president or his campaign.
Mueller cannot refute every claimed irregularity. There is no defending, for example, the intelligence leaks to the media; the blatantly disparate treatment between the kid-gloves Clinton-emails investigation and the zealous effort to derail Trump; or the presentation to the FISA court of the traitorous dossier allegations, against Trump and his campaign, that had not been corroborated by the FBI. … Mueller could be contemplating a report that portrays as justifiable the Obama administration’s use of the law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus of government to investigate the presidential campaign of the opposition party.

In short, the special counsel may be preparing to argue that the Obama officials were acting on rational suspicions, not partisan politics. He may be laying the groundwork to argue that, while political, law-enforcement, and intelligence officials made mistakes, the main culprit was Trump’s judgment in recruiting Manafort and Gates — particularly under circumstances in which the candidate was already publicly flattering Putin in an unseemly way.

Trump fans wedded irrevocably to the conceit that there was no way, no how their man would ever have colluded with Russia would be left cold by this. Others, like myself, who see “collusion with Russia” as primarily a political narrative that the Obama administration, Democrats, and the anti-Trump media settled on to rationalize Hillary Clinton’s stunning loss and to hamstring Trump’s administration, will be underwhelmed. But I’m betting Mueller figures most of the country would agree with him.

McCarthy is betting that those who do not trust teachers, or any citizen, with self defense will out. He is saying that sedition and the undermining of an election will be of no significance to “most of the country.” If he is right, the country will have tossed aside equality under law and its founding values. That is frightening.

Comments are closed.