The American Patriot Foundation, run by a group of long-time GOP ops, where funds for Lakin’s legal defense are solicited, tax-deductible, so they say, has posted a press release to its website Safeguard Our Constitution:
Testimony Sought of “Custodian of Records” AND Production of all records relating to President: Decision to be made by Army Major General
Washington, D.C., July 29, 2010. The Army doctor who is facing a court martial for refusing to obey orders, including a deployment order for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, has formally requested his Commanding General approve a deposition in Hawaii of the records-keeper of the State Department of Health—and the production of all of their records concerning Barack Obama.
The records Lakin seeks have been the subject of intense interest ever since the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when a document appeared on the internet purporting to be a certification that Hawaii’s Dept. of Health had records showing he had been born in Honolulu. Since then, Dr. Chiyome Fukino the head of that agency has made public statements on the subject, but has refused all requests for copies of the actual records in the Department’s custody. Recently, a former Hawaii elections clerk has come forward saying that he was told that the Department’s records showed Obama was NOT born in Hawaii.
The United States Constitution requires that a person be a “natural born citizen” to be elected to the presidency. If Mr. Obama was not born in Honolulu as he has claimed, then he is unlikely to be a “natural born citizen”. An examination of the records kept by the Hawaii Dept. of Health are an essential first step in ascertaining Mr. Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the office to which he was elected in 2008.
While no civil litigant has obtained discovery of these records, and all the civil lawsuits seeking those records have been dismissed on procedural grounds, Lakin’s case is different because he is the subject of criminal prosecution, and upon conviction stands in jeopardy of being sentenced to years at hard labor in the penitentiary.
Last month, Lakin waived his right to an Article 32 pre-trial hearing, which had been scheduled for June 11. The “former Hawaii elections clerk” being used as a pretext for DISCOVERY, was a short-time temp worker in the Honolulu City Clerk’s elections office, where supervisors deny he would have had access to Obama’s health records.
In a discussion on the milblog CAAflog, a comment:
I’m as defense-hacky as they come, and it this were a wild swing during an otherwise valid case, I’d say go for it.
Put another way, government-hacks hate it when trial counsel do really dumb, improper things that mess up what would have been an otherwise valid case.
Well, us defense-hacks hate it when a guy is so poorly represented that not only does he make matters worse for himself thanks to defense counsel’s advice, but arguably, but for someone buzzing in his ear about this (likely his current civ counsel) he wouldn’t have done what he did in the first place and thrown away his career.
I have little sympathy for the LTC, but what I do have is extreme anger at the civ defense counsel which I guess also engenders a tinge of sympathy for the LTC.
Defense counsel are like docs, first, do no harm. This guy didn’t just cut the wrong leg off, he cut it off knowing the guy didn’t need surgery at all, and he’s now leaving the sponge sewn up inside.
For a very full examination of United States v. Lakin, follow along with Court-martial.com here and here.
I’ve been holding off on this post, hoping the Taitz-Mouth spew machine* would power down for five whole minutes, but there is not even a moment of peace in sight for US Supreme Court personnel, under daily assault by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. She has got it in her spacious brain cavity that Supreme Court Justices personally, physically sign every bit of paper that crosses their clerks’ desks. But a clerk of the Supreme Court having now “slammed the phone” in Orly Taitz’s “face,” according to her, it seemed like a good time to catch up.
Desperately trying to get out of paying the American taxpayers the $20,000 she owes, Taitz filed an emergency petition with SCOTUS earlier this month in Rhodes v. MacDonald; recaptioned Taitz v. MacDonald, since this is an appeal of Taitz’s $20,000 sanction levied for her bad behavior as the attorney in Rhodes v. MacDonald, not an appeal of the case Rhodes v. MacDonald. Her petition was Denied by Justice Clarence Thomas on July 15.
Court clerks have long been the bane of Orly Taitz’s existence. Too often, when a judge does something she doesn’t like, Taitz creates a conspiracy centered around a court clerk, so perhaps she is a little hard for a court clerk to appreciate.
Last year, her favorite law clerk to hound was Siddharth Velamoor of Judge David O. Carter’s district court in Orange County, California, where Taitz’s case Barnett v. Obama was Dismissed by Carter last October, and is now under appeal.
But before him, came Danny Bickell, Staff Attorney to the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, William Suter.
Taitz made an improper attempt just recently to indirectly approach Justice Thomas, through his wife’s web site, just before filing the emergency petition in Taitz v. MacDonald. What I believe was her second improper approach to a Supreme Court Justice, took place in Idaho in March 2009, (she had already improperly approached Justice Scalia at a book-signing), regarding an early Birther case Lightfoot v. Bowen. At the confrontation with Chief Justice Roberts in Idaho, Taitz made accusations of “criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States” by Danny Bickell.
“Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States? I have submitted my Lightfoot vs. Bowen case to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all nine justices on January 23rd.”
“Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord, refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief that he has hidden from you and refused to post on the docket. Additionally, my case was completely erased from the docket one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. I saw Justice (Antonin) Scalia, and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd. “It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you, Justice
Roberts, demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, to be the president of the United States.”
The Birthers’ campaign of harassment against Danny Bickell actually pre-dates Taitz, but she happily will pick up any Birfoon standard and run with it.
She has now hooked up with an outfit called Human Rights Alert, (which I don’t think is associated with the Scientology site of the same name), apparently devoted to going after court personnel on behalf of unhappy lawyers.
History repeating itself, Taitz is once again riling up her Birther minions to harass the Court*:
You have to go to each and every lecture, each and every appearance of these judges and demand answers, demand signatures on the orders, so they can be held liable if they violate our constitution. When judges violate the law, they can be prosecuted as well, and surely the clerks can be prosecuted as well.
I resubmitted my application to justice Alito.
I talked to the court today, they confirmed that they got the application, but I waited all day long, and they did not post on the docket, that it was resubmitted to Alito. You can call the Supreme Court tomorrow morning and demand an answer, when will they docket the submission to justice Alito. The clerk’s number is 202-479-3000 or 202-479-3472. You can demand transparency and demand an explanation from the chief clerk William Sutter, why there is no signed order from justice Thomas. Why there is no signed order from the conference on my prior case Lightfoot v Bowen.
Even though she has legally sworn she never does such a terrible thing.
Taitz posted to her website*:
Today, 07.26.10 at 8:15 PST/11:15 EST I talked to the clerks office of the Supreme Court of the United States, with an employee of the Clerks office by name Eric Fossum. I requested a copy of the order actually signed by Justice Thomas, denyng my application for stay of sanctions in Rhodes v MacDonald #10A56.
Mr. Eric Fossum admitted that there is no order actually signed by Justice Thomas. He stated that it was reviewed by his chambers and denied. Not only they are not even claiming that Justice Thomas ever signed the order to deny my application, now they are not even claiming that he ever saw the application, now they are saying that it was reviewed by his chambers, meaning there is no evidence that it was ever reviewed by Justice Thomas himself. So who reviewed it and denied? A clerk? A piece of furniture in the chambers?
There is no order, because an order comes after an application has been referred to and granted or denied by the full court–which Justice Thomas did not send and was under no obligation to do, as he was denying her application from the get-go. What Taitz received is a disposition notification letter, which are the responsibility of the Clerk’s office. Justices do not send disposition notification letters, which do not appear on the Orders List.
Nevertheless, she has been howling at the moon* ever since.
Does any attorney know of a case where there is a pattern in the Supreme court or any other court, where a case disappears from the docket, somebody deletes it from the docket. Later an entry appears on the docket on the weekend, when judges are not there and clerks are not there, where judges don’t have a clue about the most important case on their docket?
Here it is, Orly, the not-disappeared, not-most important case on their docket. (You have to search for the correct case number.)
I highlighted the part, where it says, that the Justice denying the application will note the denial thereon. Do you see, that it says that the justice needs to note the denial, not some faceless clerk. My application was never denied, since there is no signature from Justice Thomas, there was only a docket entry made by the clerk on Saturday the 17th, when the court was closed, Justice Thomas was in Utah, and it was backdated the 15th, even though there was no such notation on Friday, July the 16th and it is not noted on the log. We downloaded the log, it is missing. There has to be a criminal investigation of what is going on. Can you help me reach the Civil rights commission, the department of Justice public integrity unit and your congressmen and senators.
All of this for $20,000 she probably has for walking around money.
But it seems our Lady of Liberty is driving these poor clerks past all forbearance:
In regards to my Application for stay, I talked to the clerks office of the Supreme Court. One of the clerks, who refused to give out his name, stated that the clerk for the stays, Danny Bickel, is too busy and can’t talk to me, but that he is returning my application sent to Justice Alito without docketing it and without giving it to Alito. I asked, why. This is totally against the rules, as one can resubmit the application, if one justice denies it. Theoretically I can resubmit it 9 times. The clerk refused to give me any answer and slammed the phone in my face.
As she grows more and more extreme in advocating sedition and violence:
It is frightening that the courts are so obviously in Obama’s corner. Was there a payoff, a threat or a promise from Obama to the courts? It’s hard to determine until we have a Conservative majority in the House and the Senate. When we do, the Senators and Congressmen, MUST pursue the truth no matter where and to whom it may lead.
As for guns, etc. if it comes to that, then I have no guilt. I and millions of us did not start this, but we are going to finish it. God help us and hopefully we won’t ever have to come to that conclusion.
The Supreme Court generally waits for a Federal District or local Bar to disbar or suspend a lawyer, before they disbar the lawyer from practice before SCOTUS, but maybe that’s just when they want to be polite?
As the election of America’s first “half-white” president nears its second anniversary, things still aren’t going that swell for the shrinking team of furious dingbats who hoped to sue Barack Obama out of the White House because his dad was an African black person. For two years, the teabaggers’ most prominent intellectual arm has waged a low-level courtroom war (mostly by email forwards) aimed at proving Barack Hussein Obama is not a citizen of America because he is a black person, and black people are — under the Original “O.G.” Constitution — simply slaves, worth only 3/5 of a normal fat white person, by body weight.
Also, the Birthers stuck to the claim that Barry Obama’s birth at a Hawaiian hospital was actually part of an elaborate conspiracy that went on for five decades with the help of U.S. newspapers, a U.S. state government and the doctors, nurses and administrators of an American hospital in Hawaii … all to groom a Soviet Muslim Alien for the presidency, because the conspirators wisely predicted (in 1961, when millions of American black kids still weren’t allowed to attend white schools or dine in white restaurants) that by 2008 the nation would be ready to choose a black person as a major-party nominee and then elect that same black person as America’s first African-American president. Genius!
Having successfully bamboozled the gullible, black-loving American populace on this whole “Hawaiian live birth” thing, the Soviet-Half-Muslin conspirators must think it’s just going to be easy times until 2012, when they plan to “elect” a gay Hindu robot-sex marijuana-selling dog-lady Palestinian as president. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, SORRY LIBS.
It is very sad, that last part. It means radical Republicans have succeeded in scaring the shit out of a lot of old people. Nice work.
The poll also took a closer look at the views of seniors since they are often assumed to have a uniform view about issues. Below are some of the poll’s key findings about seniors’ views:?
While seniors’ views of the new law are more negative than those of their younger counterparts, they remain roughly split about the law with 46 percent of seniors holding an unfavorable view of the law and 38 percent holding a favorable one. While 35 percent of seniors think they will be worse off under reform, a greater share (57%) say they will be better off (20%) or it will make no difference (37%).
Seniors’ awareness about the specific provisions of the health reform law that affect Medicare is mixed. For example, about half are aware that the new law will result in premium increases for some higher income Medicare beneficiaries (52%) and gradually close Medicare’s “doughnut hole” (50%). However, just a third (33% ) know the law will eliminate Medicare’s co-pays and deductibles for some preventive services.?
On the other hand, large shares of seniors mistakenly believe the law includes provisions that cut some previously universal Medicare benefits and creates “death panels.” Half of seniors (50%) say the law will cut benefits that were previously provided to all people on Medicare, and more than a third (36%) incorrectly believe the law will “allow a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare.”
Despite the fact that Medicare’s actuaries predict the health reform law will extend the life of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund by 12 years (from 2017 to 2029), only 14 percent of seniors know this and nearly half (45%) of seniors think the health reform law will weaken the financial condition of the fund.?
In New Study, Two Economists Argue That Bush And Obama’s Intervention Prevented Depression
So has the Obama economic program been working? While the economy certainly continues to have problems, the Obama administration — and some members of the Bush administration — have consistently argued that things would have been worse without their intervention. And now, two economists have published a study arguing in favor of that very idea, saying that there’s quantitative evidence that the interventions of the Obama and Bush administrations helped avert a depression.
As the New York Times reports, a new economic paper from Princeton professor and former Fed vice chair Alan S. Blinder and Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi argues that the combination of financial reforms such as TARP, bank stress tests and emergency lending by the Fed, plus the stimulus, have indeed saved the economy from far worse problems.
The report also finds that while the financial reforms alone would have been been stronger than the stimulus alone, the whole is not directly comparable to the sum of the parts in isolation, “because the policies tend to reinforce each other.”
For the better part of the past year, Republicans have tried to come up with a new agenda for the American people with mixed results. However, with the Tea Party now the most potent force in Republican politics, and with the recent launch of the Tea Party Caucus on Capitol Hill garnering the support of Republican leaders like National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Pete Sessions and Republican Caucus Chair Mike Pence, the Republican Party agenda has become clear. Republican leaders and Tea Party-supported Republican candidates can now rally around the “Republican Tea Party Contract on America” as the blueprint for how they would govern.
1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)
Put insurance companies back in charge, repeal tax credits for small businesses, allow insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions and to drop coverage when a person gets too sick and make prescription drugs for seniors less affordable.
2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether
Turn the guaranteed retirement benefits of America’s seniors over to Wall Street CEOs by putting Social Security at risk in the stock market or, as some Republicans have called for, phase out Social Security altogether and end a program millions of American seniors rely on for their survival.
3. End Medicare as it presently exists
Phase out and end Medicare as it presently exists for future generations of seniors — ending Medicare’s guaranteed healthcare benefits for more than 40 million American seniors — and replace it with a voucher system which will result in higher premiums and fewer services for seniors.
4. Extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and big oil
At a cost of nearly $700 billion, extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and big oil, which are set to expire and which have and will continue to explode the federal budget deficit.
5. Repeal Wall Street Reform
Roll back the toughest consumer protections ever enacted, allow banks to continue to grow too big to fail, and ensure that predatory lenders continue to utilize their most abusive practices.
6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes
Cap liabilities for those responsible for environmental disasters like the Gulf oil spill and let companies like BP decide which victims deserve compensation for the disaster and what the timeline for relief should be.
7. Abolish the Department of Education
Put the big banks back in charge of student loans and put an end to federal assistance for public schools.
8. Abolish the Department of Energy
End America’s investments in a clean-energy future and disband the organization responsible for oversight of nuclear materials.
9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency
Gut the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act — which together protect our kids from air pollution and keep drinking water safe — and disband the watchdog that holds polluters accountable.
In Liberi v. Taitz. It’s 40 pages, but half that is exhibits.
07/27/2010 Open Document ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellees Evelyn Adams, Philip J. Berg, Go Excel Global, Law Ofc of Philip J. Berg, Lisa Liberi and Lisa M. Ostella to dismiss case for lack of jurisdiction, for reimbursement of appeal fees, for attorney fees, to award costs, for sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal. Certificate of Service dated 07/27/2010. (PJB)
Berg refers to a pretty wild letter faxed to the court in June by Linda Sue Belcher, one of the defendants and a former ally of his gone over to Taitz, which he accuses Orly Taitz and Pamela Barnett of having instigated.
Just yesterday came the news that Tennessee Rep. Zach Wamp, a GOP candidate for the state’s open governor’s seat, suggested that the state might consider seceding from the union over the new health care reform law. But not to be outdone, GOP state Sen. Ron Ramsey–one of Wamp’s primary challengers–has been caught on tape questioning whether Islam is a real religion.
As Talking POints Memo reports, the exchange occurred when Ramsey fielded a question about the “invasion” of Muslims at a July 14 campaign event in Hamilton, Tenn.. Ramsey’s response? “…I’ve been trying to learn about Sharia [Islamic] law. I’ve been trying to learn what it is — not good, if that’s what’s going on. You can even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, a way of life, or a cult, whatever you want to call it. And we do protect our religions, but at the same time, this is something that we are going to have to face.”
It seems the anti-mosque protesters in California have torn a few pages from the Abu Ghraib field manual. Protesters of a planned mosque and Muslim community center in Riverside County, California are calling on locals to come to a rally outside an existing mosque with their pet dogs because, as the protest organizer says, Muslims “hate dogs.”
As the Valley News of Fallbrook reports, the leader of the anti-community center rally — who the paper does not name — has “been active with Republican and Tea Party functions” in the past, before recently distributing an email to area media outlets calling on those opposed to the construction of the Islamic Center in Temecula to come to a “one-hour ’singing – praying – patriotic rally’” July 30 at the site of the town’s existing Islamic center, which local Muslims are trying to replace with new construction.
The attempt by Root, Palin, Gingrich, and other opponents of this project to call this a “Ground Zero” mosque are therefore a complete misrepresentation of the location of the project. A misrepresentation obviously intended to lead people to think that a mosque is being built on the location of the World Trade Center rather than being constructed inside an already-existing decades old building as part of a larger project that would be open to the public as a whole. For that reason alone, Root’s appeals to emotionalism and the supposed “atrocity” that this project represents should be rejected as silly and, quite frankly, dishonest. …
In the end, Root falls into the same anti-Muslim hole that Palin, Gingrich, and others have. All he’s really saying is that we can’t let them scary Muslims build what they want to in a building they own. While he doesn’t go as far as Gingrich and Palin in calling for government action to stop the project, he adopts the same attitude of religious intolerance and, for any libertarian, that’s just unacceptable.
Unacceptable for any decent human being, but especially any American who claims to believe in the principles on which the country was founded.
Olympia Snowe joins Lindsey Graham, Richard Lugar and Susan Collins.
WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe says she plans to vote to confirm Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice.
The Maine lawmaker’s announcement makes her the fourth Republican to break with her party to back President Barack Obama’s high court nominee.
In a statement, Snowe says Kagan has met her standards for a justice with her strong intellect, respect for the rule of law and understanding of the Supreme Court’s important but limited role.
She also says endorsements from conservative lawyers show that Kagan has a reputation for a sound judicial temperament.
PHOENIX — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.
The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues.
07/28/2010 87 ORDER granting in part and denying in part the United States’ 27 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the United States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to the following Sections of Senate Bill 1070 (as amended by House Bill 2162): Section 1, Section 2(A) and (C)-(L), Section 4, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2929, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B), and Sections 7-13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED preliminarily enjoining the State of Arizona and Governor Brewer from enforcing the following Sections of Senate Bill 1070 (as amended by House Bill 2162): Section 2(B) creating A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), Section 3 creating A.R.S. § 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928 (C), and Section 6 creating A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 07/28/10. (NOTE: See attached pdf for complete details) (ESL) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
DES MOINES, Iowa — Two former employees of a U.S. Department of Education contractor in Iowa have pleaded guilty to illegally viewing President Barack Obama’s student loan records.
Julie Kline of Ainsworth, Iowa, pleaded guilty Friday to exceeding authorized computer access. Gary Grenell of Iowa City pleaded guilty to the charge July 12. Both face up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.
They were among nine former employees of Vangent Inc. accused of viewing Obama’s student loan records between 2007 and 2009.
Three other defendants have pleaded guilty, and four are scheduled for trial.
Journalist David Weigel, who resigned from the Washington Post last month after a leaked-email controversy, is joining Slate as a political reporter.
“I’m thrilled to be joining Slate, thrilled to be working with writers I’ve read and respected since logging on to read it meant enduring a symphony of dial-up clicks and hisses,” Weigel told The Upshot.
“This is the magazine that invented the sort of journalism I want to do,” he continued. “And I’m very pleased that I’ll get to continue working the beat I developed at the Post, the Independent and Reason.”
Slate Editor David Plotz told The Upshot that Weigel will launch a blog covering politics, but not exclusively on the conservative movement, Weigel’s area of expertise. Weigel is also expected to write long-form pieces.
“We’re delighted to have him,” Plotz said. “He’s a ball of energy and fearlessness and curiosity.”
On the “birther” front, Buck tells National Review Online that he regrets using the word “dumbasses,” but not the thought. “[Birthers] have come to my rallies about seven or eight times,” he sighs. “They have stood up and dominated the meetings. Instead of having a polite exchange, they come and are just all over that issue, making it hard for us to talk about the national debt and health care. . . . They are rude.” But if “birthers” are not “dumbasses,” then what are they? “They are wrong,” Buck says. “I don’t agree with them.”
Tars Tarkas at Politisink has a piece on Walt Fitzpatrick and his zany antics, trying to overthrow the forces of repression running the small town of Madisonville, Tennessee–practice for when he and his little gang of misfits overthrow the government of the United States.
Walter Fitzpatrick a bigwig of the American Grand Jury, which is basically Fitzpatrick and a few other guys who sit around, declare themselves a Grand Jury, and file charges against Barack Obama and basically everyone in Congress and the Supreme Court claiming they are committing fraud and treason as Barack Obama is really one Barry Soetoro, noted guy who isn’t an American.
To succeed in this plan, Fitzpatrick must get the Monroe County Tennessee officials to agree to charge Obama with treason and fraud, because just declaring yourself a Grand Jury doesn’t mean anyone will listen to you. So you would think Fitzpatrick would have a good working relationship with the local officials. Instead, Fitzpatrick becomes increasingly belligerent against the local officials, who don’t take his hand-written claims seriously, and soon Fitzpatrick declares that the Monroe County are part of the vast conspiracy.
A discovery hearing will be held on October 5 and trial is set for November 29 for both Fitzpatrick and his sidekick, Darren Huff; the Order noting that “Fitzpatrick shall not appear for trial in military uniform at any day that the matter is before a jury.” Poor Walt, he must be crushed.
Recently a Friend of Politijab was visiting Tennessee and decided to pay a call at the Monroe County Court House in Madisonville to pick up a bunch of Exhibits from Fitzpatrick’s and Huff’s arraignments on June 28, which illustrate Fitzpatrick ordering about Police Chiefs, State Supreme Court Justices, and so forth. There is also a mug shot and report of “Involvements” with the Sheriff’s Office by Fitzpatrick, in an earlier spectacle in Kitsap County, Washington State, described in Tarkas’s article above.
Update: Associated Press is reporting a trial date of January 11, 2011 for Darren Huff’s federal charges. The Order above for a November 29 trial is set in state court.
I just spoke with one of the ranchers who had been identified as being a victim in this story. Mr. Hector Farias of Laredo, spoke with me on the phone this morning about this matter. He told me the first he heard of this story was when he was contacted by the FBI. He has owned this ranch for over 30 years and has never had a problem on his ranch regarding illegal immigration or smuggling. He stated he was at his ranch over the weekend and everything was fine there and in the entire area. The story on the internet states that he was confronted by drug cartels. He said this is not true. There is no reason not to take him at his word.
I am most certain reason will be found, but I am glad Mr. Price checked with Mr. Farias.
Meanwhile, on Breitbart’s BigJournalism continued pot-stirring as late as yesterday:
Local law enforcement were not saying much–but they were not denying it either. The policeman I spoke to alternated “I can’t confirm” with “I can’t say anything” for his answers. When asked if the “Webb County Sheriff was taking the lead on this,” the Laredo spokesman answered, “Yeah, and they can’t confirm anything either.”
Which makes those with suspicious minds wonder: why does someone take the lead on an event that’s not happened? Perhaps the spokesman misspoke?
That local police were not confirming the story is hardly surprising: if Los Zetas, a particularly lethal paramilitary outfit, had seized a ranch, it’s not hard to see why authorities wouldn’t want curious civilians or the press in the area.
What’s notable about this story is how few other outlets have done the same. And as a result, one of the most important aspects of the Sherrod mess is going almost entirely ignored: The vast difference it highlighted between media on both sides.
To make this point one more time, it’s true that “both sides,” to one degree or another, let their ideological and political preferences dictate some editorial decisions, such as what stories to pursue, how to approach them, who to interview, etc. But what’s underappreciated is the degree to which the Breitbart-Fox axis goes far beyond this, openly employing techniques of political opposition researchers and operatives to drive the media narrative.
This simply has no equivalent on the left. The leading lefty media organizations have teams of reporters who — even if they are to some degree ideologically motivated — work to determine whether their material is accurate, fair, and generally based in reality before sharing it with readers and viewers. They just don’t push info — with no regard to whether it’s true or not — for the sole purpose of having maximum political impact. Period.
This is an important difference that’s critical to understanding the rapidly shifting landscape in the new-media age. If I ran the universe more media figures would come right out and say what the Times hinted at today: No, both sides don’t do it.
