Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (80272)	6/14/2010 9:27:54 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

How Much Abuse Should Officers Take? By Bob Weir American Thinker For all those hand-wringers out there who are shaking their collective heads in disbelief that a fifteen-year-old Mexican boy was shot dead by a Border Patrol agent because he was attempting to brain the guy with a rock, let's be clear. A rock, colliding with your skull, can kill you just as surely as a bullet. When you watch some of the videos of what these Border Patrol agents have to put up with every day, you have to wonder why more rock-throwers are not shot. I've known police officers who were killed with blunt objects and some who were crippled for life after being bludgeoned by someone they allowed to get too close. During the Columbia University war protests in 1968, a cop I had worked with a few times was assigned, along with other officers, to try to contain the marauding students and keep anyone from being injured. Well, many cops were injured while trying to be gentle with that bunch of spoiled brat radicals. One of them was my erstwhile partner. As he was keeping his eyes on a rampaging group several feet away, many of whom were throwing rocks, bottles, and other solid objects, some of which were bouncing off his helmet, he paid no attention to a student who had scaled the ledge of a one-story building, just above him. He was totally unprepared for what happened next. One of those "activists" leaped from the roof and landed on the cop's shoulders, breaking the fall of the student, but breaking the back of the cop. The downward thrust of the weight crushed the lower part of his spine, destining him to a wheelchair for the rest of his young life. In Brooklyn, during the riots of the turbulent sixties, I and many of my fellow officers faced off against street thugs who hurled anything they could get their hands on in an attempt to injure and intimidate us. Can you imagine standing out in the open, wearing a uniform that represents law and order, and having to bob and weave as you try to avoid being hit by a barrage of weapons, any one of which could kill or severely injure you? The idea that people who are assigned the duty to protect the public should be passive targets for violent assaults makes the term "law and order" a ludicrous misnomer. What part of the Constitution allows people to attack and injure symbols of authority with impunity? Attacks like those described are engaged in by the most cowardly of all people because they're done with an air of confidence that the police will not resort to their guns. It's tantamount to beating someone who is incapable of defending himself. We're hearing from the Mexican government about the "disproportionate use of force" by U.S. authorities. Okay, so how would it look if those border agents began throwing some of those rocks back at their tormentors? How about cops dealing with violent demonstrators by tossing beer bottles at them? Freedom to protest is a bedrock principle of this democracy, but that freedom is not advanced by making piñatas out of our law enforcement agents. Although my heart goes out to the grieving family of that young boy, part of me wants to know where they were when he was challenging the authority of another country and daring anyone to stop him. Part of me wants to know where they were when he was engaged in smuggling activities for the past couple of years, as has been revealed since this incident. Now that their "child" is dead, they are filled with emotion and hatred for the officer who finally decided he was not going to bob and weave anymore. Meanwhile, that officer has been placed on administrative leave while "a thorough, multi-agency investigation is being done." Too bad we don't have as much attention paid to the multiple murders of agents who lost their lives trying to enforce the law against drug smugglers and human traffickers who, every day of every week, wage a deadly war against the sovereignty of our country. Where is the outrage and indignation from the Mexican government about the millions of their people who break into our country and demand free health care and a laundry list of other amenities, none of which they expect to pay for? Frankly, I'm tired of seeing my country being continuously abused and disrespected. Those tired and poor huddled masses, "yearning to breathe free," can enjoy the benefits of liberty if they do it legally, like so many millions before them. To do otherwise is to make a mockery of our laws and weaken the social structure that makes us a desirable place to emigrate to. Bob Weir is a former detective sergeant in the New York City Police Department. He is the executive editor of The News Connection in Highland Village, Texas. E-mail Bob. .

To: Sully- who wrote (80272)	6/14/2010 11:14:13 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Meet the Neo-Marxist behind Obama FTC's campaign for 'reinventing journalism" By: Mark Tapscott Editorial Page Editor 06/11/10 8:13 PM EDT What is the most spectacularly mis-named far left activist group in America? Hands down winner is Free Press, the organizational vehicle for the Neo-Marxist American college professor who cheered Hugo Chavez when the Venzuelan thug strangled the free press in that suffering nation. Robert McChesney founded Free Press eight years ago and has been in the forefront of a proliferating movement on the far left to do to the U.S. media what Chavez and other left-wing dictators always do, which is take over the news media and convert it to propaganda outlets for their dictatorial regimes. If you doubt me, check out these quotes from McChesney culled by The Daily Caller's Mike Riggs: “Only government can implement policies and subsidies to provide an institutional framework for quality journalism.” “The news is not a commercial product. It is a public good, necessary for a self-governing society. Once we accept this, we can talk about the kind of media policies and subsidies we want.” “In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.” Nobody can seriously believe that a guy who thinks like that will have an iota of respect for the First Amendment and this country's cherished freedom of the press. I've been reporting and writing for several weeks about the FTC's "Reinventing Journalism" campaign, which is the Obama administration's initiative for nationalizing the news media, much as was done to General Motors and Chrysler were. As I reported last week, and continued this week, a "draft discussion "paper allegedly prepared by FTC staff is the current focus of the effort. Riggs makes a convincing case for the proposition that McChesney's fingerprints are all over the FTC staff working paper. And, as the three quote above make clear, that ought to stir worry, anger and resolve in everybody who believes a democratic republic must have an independent press to hold the feet of elected and appointed government officials to the fire of accountability. Quite frankly, what McChesney and the Reinventing Journalism crowd are seeking to do to the First Amendment and the free press makes the Alien & Sedition Acts pale by comparison. Journalists had better wake up before its too late and start a tea party movement in the newsroom. The danger of the FTC effort is already clear to the vast majority of Americans, as seen in a new Rasmussen Report survey that found 85 percent of those surveyed oppose the idea of government "assistance" for the news media. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com