Image 01 Image 03

June 2014

Soldiers who served with Bowe Bergdahl were in the news a lot this week offering their opinions on the situation and most of them are clearly not happy with Bergdahl being portrayed as a hero. For the sin of interfering with the preferred narrative, these men have been accused of swift-boating Bergdahl and were even called psychopaths by a member of the Obama administration. Megyn Kelly interviewed six of these men on her FOX News program Thursday night. Here's a segment. See more at FOX News. Ben Domenech keeps the Bergdahl issue in perspective with a piece at The Federalist:

Well, I've finally gotten around to launching the Law of Self Defense weekly video/podcasts, and Professor Jacobson was kind enough to let me make a post about it here. This first episode I knew I'd be struggling with IT issues--and, indeed, I am--so I kept the subject matter relatively simple. This first ~23 minute post is on a pet peeve of mine, which is Stand-Your-Ground, and the many ways in which people misunderstand, misapply, and miscommunicate this relatively straightforward legal concept. Hence: "Stand-Your-Ground: What It Is, What It Isn't, and Why It's Important." I prepared both a videocast--which functions like a slide presentation, with my dulcet tones stepping the viewer through the slides--as well as a audio-only podcast--which is essentially just the audio track of the videocast. There's nothing in the slides that I don't cover verbally, but I know some folks respond better to visual information content, so there it is. The videocast is hosted on Youtube, as that seemed the most straightforward approach: The podcast will eventually be available on iTunes (and, in fact, it's kind of halfway on there, but I'm still struggling with getting that quite right). Hopefully, by next week everyone will be able to simply subscribe to the Law of Self Defense podcasts on iTunes in the normal fashion. In the meantime, for those interested in an audio-only version without having to wait for me to sort out iTunes, at present you can listen to that via this method: http://lawofselfdefense.libsyn.com/rss

70 years later, D-Day vet Jim 'Pee Wee' Martin jumps again: Jim "Pee Wee" Martin acted like he'd been here before, like jumping from a plane is as easy as falling off a log. Maybe that's because he had -- 70 years ago. "I'm feeling fine," Martin told...

I recently reported on the plight of former US Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, who has been languishing in a Mexican jail while authorities hold him on assorted weapons charges for the 3 guns he was carrying in his vehicle. The backlash against the release of 5 Taliban terrorists from Gitmo in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has dramatically increased dissatisfaction with how President Obama is performing. Combining elements of these new items together, one Texas gun store owner proposes a prisoner swap that should be much more satisfying (see Featured Image): Meanwhile, William A. Thien, the Commander-in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, has written directly to Obama in an effort to free Tahmooressi:

The NY Times ran an editorial on June 5, The Rush to Demonize Sgt. Bergdahl, excoriating Republicans for hypocrisy as to condemnation of the exchange of 5 top Taliban Gitmo detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. There are many all-too-typical Times sleights of hand, such as referring to Bergdahl as:
... a free-spirited young man who asked many questions but gave no indication of being a deserter, let alone the turncoat that Mr. Obama’s opponents are now trying to create.
In condemning a rush to judgment as to Bergdahl by critics, The Times Editors rush to an alternative judgment. More important, the centerpiece of the Editorial, with which it begins, is a quote from John McCain (emphasis added):
Four months ago, Senator John McCain said he would support the exchange of five hard-core Taliban leaders for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. “I would support,” he told CNN. “Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home and if exchange was one of them I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.”
NY Times Rush to Demonize Sgt Bergdahl 6-6-2014 9 30 am I've underlined the words "Obviously I’d have to know the details" because those words were not in the original versions of the Editorial.  Rather, it was a late correction which significantly scales back the notion that McCain previously supported this exchange deal. I've tracked the changes in the Editorial through a very useful service, NewsDiff.  The NewsDiff archive history page for the Times Editorial reflects that the Editorial originally had a less aggressive title, and also did not include the part of McCain's quote I've highlighted.  In omitting that language from the quote, the Times made it seem as if McCain supported the same deal that Obama struck.  That supposed support was the foundation for the Editorial, but when the foundation shifted, the Times made like nothing changed. Here's the edit history of the intro paragraph via NewsDiff:

Australia has announced that it no longer will refer to East Jerusalem as "occupied" territory. This is an enormous and important contribution to Middle East peace, as it corrects the false narrative that Israel's recapturing of territory illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967 is not justifiably part of Israel. For the historical and legal background of why Israel's recapture of East Jerusalem and other territories is not illegal under international law, see Prof. Eugene Kontorovich's recent article at Commentary Magazine, Crimea, International Law, and the West Bank, as well as his lecture, The Legal Case for Israel. The Times of Israel reports, Australia drops ‘occupied’ label from East Jerusalem:
The Australian government will not refer to East Jerusalem as “occupied, territory” the government said in a statement on Thursday, in what one legislator called a “massive shift” in foreign policy Attorney General George Brandis explained Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop’s position that using the word “occupied” was judgmental and does not contribute to the dialogue about the contested area, the Australian Associated Press reported.
The move came, in part, as an Australian reaction to the verbal abuse Palestinians heap on anyone who supports Israel (been to a campus lately?):
Australia’s decision to stop referring to East Jerusalem as “occupied” territory and to adopt additional similar steps that will likely please Israel and anger the Palestinians came as a retaliatory measure against Palestinian officials who in recent months repeatedly and ferociously attacked Canberra’s Middle East policies in public, The Times of Israel has learned “The Australian government is irritated by how the Palestinians have chosen to pursue their disagreements with us in public,” a senior Australian source told The Times of Israel Thursday. “This is the kind of behavior you’d expect from the leaders of a student union but not from a government-in-waiting.”
As expected, the Palestinians heaped even more abuse on the Australians:

In the name of “a socialist transformation of society,” intolerant students at University College London (UCL) have violated the rules of their student union by banning a group calling itself the Nietzsche Club, after German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The official resolution speaks for itself and might even violate British law. According to Union Policy UP1343, passed earlier this year and available at the Union’s website, the UCL Union (basically the student government) officially believes that the Nietzsche Club “is aimed at promoting a far-right, fascist ideology” and must be stopped at all costs. In case there was any question, UCLU adds that “there is no meaningful distinction to be made between a far-right and a fascist ideology” and that “fascism is directly threatening to the safety of the UCL student body.” What is so threatening? Fearsome posters on campus—which “advertise a study of the philosophers Nietzsche, de Benoist [no friend of capitalism], Heidegger and Evola.” The horror! Posters inviting students to study philosophers and their ideas! What a direct threat to safety! UCLU officially believes that these people “are on the extreme-right, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, homophobic, anti-Marxist, anti-worker and have had connections, direct or indirect, with Italian fascism and German Nazism.” Then the socialism comes in:
“fascism is used by the ruling class to divide workers and students … to split them and thus weaken their effectiveness as a force and undermine their resistance to … consequences of the crisis of the capitalist system.”
Then the intolerance comes in:
“any attempts by fascists or the far-right to organise on campus must be met with unconditional resistance.” Unconditional! Thus the Union has resolved to “ban and otherwise prevent the installation of any further publicity of this group … prevent any attempts by this group to hold meetings and organise events on campus … [and] reject any attempts by this group to seek affiliation and official recognition.”
Then the socialism comes back:

I continue to hope that there will be a complete and total resolution of who did what and who did or did not coordinate it, as to the taping of Thad Cochran's wife in a nursing home. As of this writing, there is no publicly available information that the campaign of Chris McDaniel was involved. Because the Cochran campaign deliberately delayed going to authorities for weeks, the issue was not completely put to bed by the time of the June 3 primary. That uncertainty -- even if completely speculative -- continues to fuel pro-Cochran messaging, suggesting concern that there may be a shoe to drop after the runoff. In that regard, when am I going to get an answer to my question, asked repeatedly since the taping scandal broke, What did the @NRSC know, and when did it know it?. (Please ReTweet) I may have to escalate my Twitter campaign to get an answer if none is forthcoming soon. Yesterday a "scandal" broke that a McDaniel campaign coordinator and two others were locked in the courthouse after hours on election night (actually after midnight) where the ballots were counted.   This led to all sorts of accusations by Haley Barbour and the Cochran campaign supporters that there was criminal activity.

Lawmakers in the Senate reached a deal Thursday on the framework of a bill intended to address some of the recently uncovered issues related to the Department of Veterans Affairs. From the Associated Press:
Senior senators reached agreement Thursday on the framework for a bipartisan bill expanding veterans' ability to get health care outside the government's scandal-beset Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics. The bill would allow veterans who experience waits of 30 days or more for VA appointments or who live at least 40 miles from a VA hospital or clinic to use private doctors enrolled as providers for Medicare, military TRICARE or other government health care programs. It would let the VA immediately fire as many as 450 senior regional executives and hospital administrators for poor performance. The bill resembles a measure passed last month by the House, but includes a 28-day appeal process omitted by the House legislation. "Right now we have a crisis on our hands and it's imperative that we deal with that crisis," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. The legislation is a response to a building national uproar over veterans' health care following allegations that surfaced in April that as many as 40 veterans may have died while waiting an average 115 days for appointments at the Phoenix VA hospital or its walk-in clinics. Since then, investigators have found long wait times and falsified records covering them up at other VA facilities nationwide.
The agreement was announced Thursday by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Meanwhile, Acting Veterans Affairs Secretary Sloan Gibson arrived for a visit at the Phoenix VA Health Care System Thursday.  He was expected to provide updates on what his office is doing to address the situation in which numerous veterans were intentionally left off of a wait list. Gibson indicated that most of those veterans have since been contacted to schedule appointments.

Nothing about the Bergdahl/Taliban affair should have been surprising to people who have studied Obama over the years. Not Obama's audacity, nor his disregard of prior bipartisan warnings in Congress or from the intelligence community, nor his aides' attempts to discredit those from Bergdahl's unit who are calling Bergdahl a deserter or worse, nor Obama's refusal to offer any apologies whatsoever for his actions in this affair, nor his lies and broken promises, nor the fact that quite a few Democrats are lining up to defend him like the good party hacks that they are. An intellectual reaction is one thing. But there's still an emotional reaction---what Peter Wehner referred to as a visceral reaction---which is to be stunned, disgusted, outraged, and full of trepidation about both the long-term effects of this move and what Obama will be doing for a series of encores. I've been wanting to know what the American electorate thinks of it all. Today I read that the results of a Fox News poll showed Americans evenly split on the subject, and that news surprised me, too, although it probably shouldn't have.

The investigators in the "John Doe" proceeding against conservative activists in Wisconsin are appealing the federal District Court's injunction shutting down the investigation, as we previously detailed in numerous posts. That injunction is part of a lawsuit by Eric O'Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth also seeking damages and other relief directly against the investigators, who are also local prosecutors, for violating the activists' constitutional rights. A separate lawsuit has been filed in state court against the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board. As part of the appeal in the federal case, yesterday the investigators filed a redacted copy of the original Petition for Commencement of John Doe Proceeding (full embed at bottom of post), detailing the reasons why the investigators sound the sweeping secrecy provisions of Wisconsin's John Doe procedure. Among the reasons was a cryptic and redacted reference to the targets of the probe having "well placed" ties to the blogoshpere (transcription via Wisconsin State Journal):
“I believe it is reasonable to expect that any public filing about the existence of this investigation will generate substantial publicity, both from traditional (e.g., print and broadcast journalism) and non-traditional (e.g. Internet blog) information sources. This is because the individuals involved in this investigation are well-placed,” it reads. The rest of that sentence was blacked out and was not visible in public court records.
Here's the relevant portion of the Petition (highlighting added, redaction in original):

Wisconsin Petition for Commencement of John Doe Proceeding re blogosphere highlighted

I think new media has arrived when the government is more afraid of the blogosphere than the blogosphere is of the government.

Who among us is surprised by this report by Alana Goodman at The Washington Free Beacon about Team Billary trying to impress upon the NY Times the importance of LEAVE HILLARY ALONE! Hillary to New York Times: Back Off:
Some of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides blasted the New York Times for what they said was unfair coverage of the former first lady during a recent secret meeting with the paper’s Washington bureau, the Washington Free Beacon has learned. Sources said the meeting included Clinton advisers Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin, as well as Times Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan and national political reporter Amy Chozick, who has been on the Clinton beat for the paper. During the closed-door gathering, Clinton aides reportedly griped about the paper’s coverage of the potential 2016 candidate, arguing that Clinton has left public office and not be subjected to harsh scrutiny, according to a source familiar with the discussions.
Even CNN mocked control freak Billary (via IJR Review):

There's a growing sense that, at least for now, the Bergdahl/Taliban exchange and its fallout has the left spooked. Maybe Obama will wriggle out of this mess, too, either by way of the same tricks that have extricated him from so-called "scandals" such as Benghazi, or by distracting us in some new and horrific way. Or maybe there will be a hurricane somewhere that can provide a serendipitous photo-op to impress those Americans who have political attention-deficit disorder. But at the moment this story, probably more than any other incident of Obama's presidency, is one that makes him look bad. It appears to simultaneously expose his disregard for the safety of America and Americans, his sympathy for fundamentalist Islamist governments, his failure to do his homework, his drive towards greater executive power, his disregard for Congress (including some members of both parties) and the law itself, his mendacity, and the stupidity and collaboration of his advisors in all of the above. I may have left something out, but you get the idea. The military men and women who served with Bergdahl and on whom Obama counted to keep their mouths shut are (unlike the diplomats in Benghazi) speaking up and telling what they know. The NY Times and Time and other organs that normally can be counted on to carry Obama's water are spilling it all over the place. That leaves lonely folk such as TNR's Brian Beutler and Esquire's Charles P. Pierce doing their level best to convince the world that it's only vile Republicans complaining about the swap, and that their carping is motivated by petty politics and a cold attitude towards the suffering of prisoners of war.