Fundamental missing part of the CNN story? Becca Campbell was a Ferguson protester. The story of the accidental shooting, as told by the boyfriend, is just a tad suspicious.
ST. LOUIS (CNN) – A woman appears to have accidentally fatally shot herself in the head with a gun bought to prepare for possible Ferguson-related unrest, according to sources briefed on the police investigation.
The shooting occurred Friday night in downtown St. Louis, the city’s Metropolitan Police Department said, in an area dominated by vacant lots beside a football stadium.
The female victim, identified in a police report as Becca Campbell, 26, was a passenger in a car involved in an auto accident. Her 33-year-old boyfriend was driving, the sources told CNN.
Lockdown lifted but investigation continuing…
Sources told KENS 5 a driver was placed in custody after reportedly driving through a gate without stopping, triggering a manhunt. The suspect was chased by Base Law Enforcement personnel and captured on one of the parade fields, according to a source.
An Explosive Ordnance Disposal team was brought in to inspect the suspects vehicle for possible explosives and later cleared the vehicle saying no bombs were detected.
In a statement, a post spokesperson said there were ‘no other passengers in the vehicle at the time and no other individuals are suspected of being involved.’
Fort Sam Houston was under ‘heightened security measures’ while the investigation unfolds, officials said.
Apparently gang members don’t wear hoodies.
Via Truth Revolt:
In the end, what I have confidence in is that if we do a better job of training our law enforcement to be sensitive to the concerns of minority communities, then over time, trust can be built. In part because minority communities typically are subject to more crime, they need law enforcement more than anybody. And there are a lot of communities in my hometown of Chicago, for example, who actually want to see more police in, but they want to make sure that the police are trained so they can distinguish between a gang-banger and a kid who just happens to be wearing a hoodie, but otherwise is a good kid and not doing anything wrong.
We reported on the brilliant SNL parody here.
Via PJ Media:
Saturday on C-SPAN’s Book TV, CIA Benghazi annex security team members Kris Paronto and Mark Geist answered questions about a report released Friday by the House Intelligence Committee on the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in 2012. The two former CIA contractors pushed back forcefully against parts of the the committee’s conclusions about the night that Ambassador Chris Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in Benghazi.
The report by the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, concluded that “the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi” and that “appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night.” The committee “found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support.” The report, according to the House Intelligence Committee, is meant to serve as the “definitive House statement on the Intelligence Community’s activities before, during, and after the tragic events that caused the deaths of four brave Americans” so that the American public can separate “facts from the swirl of rumors and unsubstantiated allegations.”
Kris “Tanto” Paronto, co-author of the book 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi, reacted to the report on Twitter Friday night and Saturday morning, prior to the C-SPAN interview:
“We were told to stand down. We were delayed for approximately 27 minutes on our compound,” he said. “We do not know, as far as outside of our chain of command outside Libya, where that came from. We know that the stand down orders and the waits and the delays came from Libya. Came from chief of station, chief of base. Whether it came from anybody higher, we don’t answer that. We don’t know. And we’d like to know, but we have no idea.”
Paronto specifically reported they were told to stand down to Mike Rogers, one of the people behind this new House Report.
“Ma’am,” Paronto said, “during the House intel subcommittee I looked at Mike Rogers in the eyes and I said, ‘If we would have not been delayed — which, we were delayed three times — that we would have saved the ambassador’s life and Sean Smith’s life.’” He added, “Why he came out with the report, I don’t know what to tell you on that. You’re going to have to ask him. What we said in the book is what happened on the ground and that is the truth.”
Dyson actually calls white police working in black populated areas “a matter of the state occupying forces”.
It is a fundamental fight, and one we must win.
Via National Interest:
I present these musing under the rubric, “Requiem for the American Republic.” I do so with a profound sadness at the destruction wreaked upon our civic system through the decades-long phenomenon of uncontrolled immigration. In presenting his new policy of granting illegal immigrants legal status through executive action, President Obama said he did so in part because of “who we are as Americans.” Who we are is a nation of laws. Our government has ignored the law for a generation or more in allowing law-breaking immigrants to enter the country. Now the president doubles down on that assault on American law by promulgating an unconstitutional executive order.
Inevitably, those who are unconcerned about the flow of illegal immigrants—either through humanitarian impulses or because they see a political realignment in the making (or both)—can’t perceive why anybody would view the president’s action as the least bit malign.
But this is a brazen assault on the separation of powers doctrine of our Constitution. When the president says his action is “just like [what] law enforcement does every day,” he heralds the arrival in distilled form of Orwell’s “Newspeak.” Newspeak is a corrosive force, as Orwell made clear, because it contributes to the slow erosion of verities, such as the fundamental elements of the American Creed.
HT: Brit Hume
And the fans were Canadians. Thank you, O Canada!
Hilarious. They realize she has a major connection with the public problem, so they are trying to polish her up, increase her humanity. Listen, for each ‘reason’ they outline for why you should be ‘ready’ for Hillary, the exact opposite is actually the case.
1. “She really does care about the average American”. Yup, with all those mortgages for all the houses and being a ‘dead broke’ millionaire, she can really relate. I’m not critical of her having money, I’m critical of her attempt to lie and ‘look like a regular person’.
2. Hillary “can articulate a vision”. I’m still waiting for what that is, other than “I’m next to be in line to be president, and dammit, I deserve it!”
3. “Whether you say it or not, you trust Hillary Clinton”. Um, Hillary has a long history of deception from being fired on the Watergate to team to lying to the parents of the dead Americans killed in Benghazi, there are few people I would trust less.
4. “She isn’t afraid to talk about difficult decisions”. Where was she on the night of September 11, 2012? Who made what decision that night? Who decided to send Susan Rice out to lie on the Sunday shows about a video? Who thought up the video lie? Why did you lie about it to the parents of the dead? Why did you obfuscate about your decisions at State that caused the lack of security in Benghazi. I could go on and on, and there are so many more issues of failures, but you get the point.
5. “Someone who wouldn’t forget about the little people like us”. Unless you’re dying on a roof in Benghazi.
6. “I want my future to be in her hands, and I think she can lead this country to places it’s never been before”. Oh poor deluded woman, your future is in YOUR hands, why would you hand it over to anyone else, much less a politician who couldn’t give a rap. And yes, I am very afraid that she can take this country to “places it has never been before”…
7. “She did an amazing job as Secretary of State”. Pray tell, what are her achievements in the position? Please list them for me. She can’t even list them. She earned reports criticizing her on the security provided in Benghazi. Is that an achievement?
8. “She’s out of sight”. Would that were true.
9. “She’s a strong woman” (as she hugs Bill Clinton). Well, I’ll give her that. She is a strong woman, anyone else would have run from him long ago. But there were her own political desires to be achieved.
10. “We’re all familiar with her, her work ethic and her beliefs”. Ok, then please outline those for me in specifics, what do you believe she will do as President. I think we will find answers to that question amorphous, emotional and lacking in concrete actions or facts.
11. “You are our best hope. You are our next hope”. How did that last hope work out for you?
12. “I’m back!”. So are deported illegal aliens, but we’re not voting for them either…
Democrats in Congress who don’t object basically are saying they are irrelevant.
Via Weekly Standard:
A handful of Senate Democrats are publicly expressing disapproval of the president’s executive action on immigration, but it’s not yet clear that any of them are willing to do anything to stop him.
“Our immigration system is broken, and I support a comprehensive plan to fix it, but executive orders aren’t the way to do it,” Missouri senator Claire McCaskill said in a statement issued late Friday afternoon.
“I am as frustrated as anyone that Congress is not doing its job, but the President shouldn’t make such significant policy changes on his own,” Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana said in a statement Thursday.
“I’m disappointed the President decided to use executive action at this time on this issue as it could poison any hope of compromise or bipartisanship in the new Senate before it has even started,” Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota said in a statement Thursday.
Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats, told Politico: “I worry that his taking unilateral action could in fact inflame public opinion, change the subject from immigration to the president. I also have constitutional concerns about where prosecutorial discretion ends and unconstitutional executive authority begins.”
What does Obama say? Oh, that would be wrong.
Via The Blaze:
If President Barack Obama can exercise “prosecutorial discretion” — basically deciding not to enforce the law in certain cases — when it comes to immigration, could later presidents decide not to enforce other laws?
Could, say, a Republican president decide not to enforce tax laws?
That’s the question that ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos asked the president in a Sunday morning interview, and Obama fired back by saying, essentially, there were too many illegal immigrants to enforce immigration law and because tax cheats are richer and less numerous, they couldn’t get a free pass in the future:
The reason that we have to do prosecutorial discretion in immigration is that we know we are not even close to being able to deal with the folks who have been here a long time. The vast majority of folks understand that they need to pay taxes, and when we conduct an audit, for example, we are selecting those folks who are most likely to be cheating. We’re not going after millions and millions of people who everybody knows are here and we’re taking advantage of low wages as they’re mowing lawns or cleaning out bedpans, and looking the other way.
Obama added, “Everybody knows, including Republicans, that we’re not going to deport 11 million people.”
“So you don’t think it’d be legitimate for a future president to make that argument [that tax law should be selectively enforced]?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“With respect to taxes?” Obama said. “Absolutely not.”
That’s what you get when your ‘fashion section’ is about Kim Kardashian’s derriere…
It’s a simple concept. You cannot make new law with executive action. If it’s new or in contravention of present law, you can’t do it. And that is why Obama’s actions are unconstitutional.
A new video released by the GOP on Friday calls out former Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton for her hypocrisy on the issue of executive action.
In 2008, Clinton said the George W. Bush administration was transforming the executive branch into an “imperial presidency.” In 2014, Clinton said she supported President Obama’s decision to grant citizenship to more than four million illegal immigrants.
Clinton unknowingly provided the narration for the GOP’s newest video.
“Unfortunately our current president does not seem to understand the basic character of the office he holds,” Clinton said of Bush in April 2008. “Rather than faithfully execute the laws, he has rewritten them through signing statements, ignored them through secret legal opinions, undermined them by elevating ideology over facts. Rather than defending the constitution, he has defied its principles and traditions.”
Why have any laws at all? Everyone knows there are going to be people who steal. Everyone knows there are going to be people who kill. Everyone knows there are going to be dead Democrats who vote…twice.
Via Daily Mail:
President Barack Obama brushed off complaints levied by the GOP that his immigration actions are illegal in an ABC News interview that aired today, saying that the U.S. has ‘limited resources’ and it only makes sense for the government to prioritize the removal of ‘felons, criminals and recent arrivals’ over longtime residents and families.
‘Everybody knows, including Republicans, that we’re not going to deport 11 million people,’ Obama told George Stephanopolous during a Friday interview for his Sunday morning program This Week.
‘The reason that we have to do prosecutorial discretion in immigration is that we know that we are not even close to being able to deal with the folks who have been here a long time,’ he said.
In the extended interview Obama and Stephanoplous also discussed the grand jury investigation into Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson and the 2016 presidential race.
NYC public schools are overwhelmed, just normally, nevermind this.
Via NY Post:
New York has sent a warning to its schools: Expect more illegal immigrants.
The city Department of Education has told principals it plans this year to enroll 2,350 migrant children from Central America who crossed into the United States unaccompanied — with many more to come.
“It is expected that children will continue to arrive in large numbers in the coming years,” says a DOE memo to principals obtained by The Post.
The notice comes as the city rolls out a $50 million red carpet for 1,662 minors who crossed the border this summer to escape violence and gangs in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
In the “surge,” 5,000 of the 63,000 migrant kids caught trying to cross US borders — or who turned themselves in for refuge — have been released to relatives or other “sponsors” in New York state. Most live with other illegal immigrants.
Meanwhile, as this pushes resources to the breaking point, the Mayor of NYC tweets about rainbows and unicorns.