On November 28, 2014, I appeared with RT‘s Ameera David discussing inter alia Ferguson, the grand jury process Missouri style, Bob McCulloch and the entire slew and lot of all those involved and concerned.
Monthly Archives: November 2014
There were wonderful days of radio per-Rush. In The Enduring Spirit of Howard Beale Professor James Tracy interviews yours truly for a lively and boisterous tête-à-tête. In it, such gems and bromides as the following infra were gleaned. Here, I quote myself. A fascinating proposition.
It was in the glory days of talk radio before everybody wanted to be Rush, or the Wannabes came along–when it was interesting, when you had local. You had people who really did not belong on radio, people who did not have stentorian voices, as did and do I not. I’ve been described as Joe Pesci on helium. My favorite is Curly Howard on Benzedrine. People had personality [and] perspective. And then Rush came along and simultaneously revamped, rekindled, and reinstituted AM radio as a viable commercial property, and simultaneously destroyed it by inspiring all of these right wing Rush wannabes who were talentless, and still are in many respects.
LIONEL PODCAST: Why the Professional Left Is Clueless As to Ferguson, Darren Wilson and Grand Juries Inter Alia
The left left a long time ago. The prototypical leftie cannot fathom any possibility that Darren Wilson was not indicted, that no true bill was rendered, that he’s not cracking rocks upstate or in the Greybar Inn for any reason other than institutional corruption and/or judicial putrescence. They simply can’t. They’ve signed on to the trope that the fix is in, that McCulloch gamed the system and that any chance for justice has left the station. For it seems that these juridical autodidacts and overnight Internet Perry Mason wannabes have gotten it through their thickened Neanderthal crania that justice hasn’t been served here and it must be because this untethered and out of control prosecutor and/or this racist system have struck again. Where were they I ask when runaway grand juries were working overtime in indicting ham sandwiches à la Wachtler like the swing shift at the Carnegie? No, the refrain is that Mad Dog McCulloch gummed up the juridacture works and plied the jurors grand with mountains of data, reports, witnesses and labyrinthine testimony and they were plumb tuckered out and threw in the towel. That’s their story and there sticking to it, I reckon.
Missouri is to the grand jury process what Florida is to the electoral. First, just what is the grand jury anyway? Well, Jethro, I’m glad you asked. To put it succinctly, no one knows. No, seriously. It’s a funky kinda outboard tribunal of whacky star chamber outliers that can serve as an investigative as well as accusatory body but is basically the indentured bitch of the prostituter, er, prosecutor. (I’m not kidding.)
Somebody wake Nino. In United States v. Williams 504 U.S. 36 (1992), Mr. Justice Scalia delivered the majority opinion and in part noted thusly as to the tenuous and rather fascinating role of the tendentious little brother to Torquemada. Read this beaut, the highlighted in particular. After all, that’s why they’re highlighted.
“[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It ” `is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’ ” United States v. Chanen, 549 F. 2d 1306, 1312 (CA9) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F. 2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(a). [e.s.]
Huh? Did you dig that? (1) It belongs to no branch of the “institutional government” and (2) its relationship to the courts is “at arm’s length.” WTF, indeed. Translation: They be on their own. So let me return to the initial point that was made, how can the archetypal left rant and rail anent and against the grand jury in the case sub judice when even Nino has nary a clue of what they do and are? Because it’s nothing to do with fact but feeling and fad.
Bless their hearts. Think Progress in the subject of inspiring a hugely cited social media Twitter meme sequence likewise cites Scalia in Williams:” [N]either in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.” And from this they took this to indict the Ferguson grand jury and Wild Man McCulloch. What a stretch. But that’s the essence and politics of the left-right paradigm. Not to mention, they simply have no idea of what the feck they’re talking about.
LIONEL PODCAST: Ferguson Protestors: Clowns in a Pathetic Media Circus. The Real Victims of Police Abuse Are Being Overlooked. Michael Brown Is the Worst Choice for Victim. Let’s Talk About Kelly Thomas, a Schizophrenic Who Was Executed by the Cops.
Remember Kelly Thomas. Remember how a jury acquitted two Fullerton police officers charged in the savage beating and death of Kelly Thomas, a homeless man who suffered from schizophrenia. Remember how that jury reached a not guilty verdict notwithstanding and despite their viewing video, audio, and images of the sickening incident that shocked many courtroom and media observers and sparked protests in the streets of Fullerton. This is a man who died at the hands of his badged executioners, a man who didn’t deserve to die. A man who seemed to have slipped through the media’s attention span of a gnat.
Thug?! Where do I get that depiction? From the grand jury report. Michael Brown as the aggressor who advanced upon and challenged an armed police officer. This isn’t rocket science. You’ve simply picked the wrong case to make the case of police brutality and excess. For crying out loud, Sparky, there are so many cases of cops brutalizing citizens for merely dating to photograph them. Why aren’t those the standards and exemplars of crazy militarism? Michael Brown like Trayvon Martin involve two menacing hulks threatening armed victims. Tragic. And deadly stupid.
The devolution of a one proud system. Gadzooks! I might and must add, the Jurassic media were in full force and rare form. The Ted Baxter sockpuppet, echo chamber, bumper sticker, cookie cutter impuissant hoary media. But alas, Murrow. Alternative media win the day, yet again. I commend to you an excellent analysis from Andrew Branca. The facts of the case are critical and he brilliantly dissects and parses them in a surgical presentment that’s nonpareil.
- Read how Officer Wilson was menaced by Brown, attacked, and after Brown left, then returned.
- How Brown engaged the officer and how these fantastic claims of Brown executed or on his knees with palms up, read how that never happened. Repeat: Never happened!
And this brilliant schematic from Branca. A priceless tutorila on the law of self-defense.
- Innocence: Wilson must not have been the unlawful physical aggressor.
- Imminence: Wilson must have been facing a threat that is either about to occur right now, or is in actual progress.
- Proportionality: To be justified in the use of deadly force in self-defense Wilson must have been facing a threat of death or grave bodily harm.
- Reasonableness: Wilson’s perceptions, decisions, and actions must have been those of a reasonable and prudent police officer in the same circumstances, with the same capabilities, possessing the same specialized knowledge, and under the same stresses of an existential fight.
There has been more exactitude in the case of Bill Cosby than in the public pillorying of Officer Wilson. And all thanks to the usual bands of racial arsonists who are trucked in spouting insane claims, hoping to beef up their reel and getting a place on Mediaite as viral video of the hour. The media are like a voracious animal whose gaping maw needs constant replenishing. Like the runaway train whose boiler has to be replenished constantly. Emphasis on the term runaway.
The decision explicated perfectly. The rudiments, bases, the basest bases.
The worst grand jury announcement in the history of humankind. This monstrosity. How horrible was that? It was the video equivalent of water boarding. If you didn’t know within the first two minutes that there was no indictment, you weren’t paying attention. It was maundering and circular, confused and ill-measured. Horrid. And in many respects cruel because so many folks truly believed a true bill would mean justice some how.
My prediction as to exactly what the Ferguson Grand Jury did. It wasn’t obvious. It was the only outcome possible. And it had nothing to do with the bases advanced by media racial arsonist.
Behold JFK’s assassination. Take a good look. This is what it looks like when a President is removed via a coup d’état. Nasty, cold, lethally efficient. The consummate dispatch. An evanescence and ablated tenure. And that’s precisely what happened 51 years ago this week(end). This was a conspiracy, plain as day. Say it. Don’t run from it. It was a conspiracy. The Warren Commission was also a conspiracy and a pathetic joke . . . no, a bad joke . . . and it led and paved the way for government complicity and coverup couched in commissions to be facially farcical at best. Just look at the embarrassing 9/11 carnival. It was then a time when organized crime and American intel were ofttimes so interrelated, merged and entwined that you couldn’t tell who was the bad guy and the really bad guy. This was a President who threatened the CIA existentially that he wanted to “splinter the[m] . . . into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” Wowser. That sealed his fate. And the ultimate and sick irony of ironies? Having Allen Dulles on the Warren Commission. Incredible! the choir sings. They must have had quite the chortle then. Remember also Calogero Minacori aka Carlos Marcello who quipped you kill the dog by cutting off its head, not its tail. This is textbook, boilerplate conspiracy.
Watch this superb piece by eminent alternate media sage Paul Joseph Watson. This is simply and indubitably breathtaking and why our own Ted Baxter sock puppet mainstream media aren’t repeatedly reviewing this is beyond me. It’s just another point of extreme fascination that I have as to the most obvious case of inside job ever recorded in the annals of encyclopedic inside jobs. Thank Gawd for the ferocious alternative media.
It changed my life and my perspective. This horrific moment changed and cemented my worldview and spectrum life and makes me who I am today: suspect, untrusting, unflinchingly skeptical and not a conspiracy theorist but a conspiracy analyst. Thank you, GV. In my lifetime I’ve known assassination rhythms during a five-year span from 1963-1968. JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers and the three American civil rights workers: James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael “Mickey” Schwerner. And throw in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin fiction and Watergate for good measure. I was born in conspiracy; it’s all I’ve ever known.
LIONEL PODCAST: An Interview With Professor James Tracy, Rogue Academic Who Dares to Question the Official Story of Sandy Hook
Behold the man who dared to question. An academic, no less. Professor James Tracy of Florida Atlantic University and Memory Hole Blog joined me for a conversation on the dread conspiracy theory, the label that immediately shuts up and down and interrupts and derails thought without surcease and fail. Behold the man who dared — DARED! — to question the official account of Sandy Hook, a man who simply and merely asked questions — QUESTIONS! — and then incurred and uncorked the usual and predictable ire and wrath of a feckless and impuissant mainstream media who don’t take kindly to those who question — QUESTION! — whether they’re doing their job. There was a time when academic freedom provided the fearless and intrepid backdrop and stage for intellectual inquiry. The proscenium for ideation and issue inspection. Jim Tracy dared to question the official account of Sandy Hook and continues to. And I love and respect immediately anyone who strips aware the veneer of the oafish-al sleight of hand rendition.
The subject of this recordation. In this interview the good professor and I discuss the retooling and stripped down dissection of the term conspiracy theory to connote that of lunacy and the baseless, the future of the classroom and campus as crucibles of truth, attempts to stifle and silence daring academics and what “woke him up,” a concept many in my biz are familiar with, i.e. the event or events that made him aware of organized and concerted media deception. Dig.
LIONEL PODCAST: Why Al Sharpton’s Not in Prison, CNN Resident Cretin Don Lemon’s Let Anywhere Near a Mic and Manson Can Marry in Prison But Gay Marriage Is Illegal in 17 States
Al Sharpton on television. Sure, but as a host?! First, he can’t read a prompter. Seriously, he can’t read a prompter. Why is that important, you ask? You’re kidding, right? Television is all prompter-fed and scripted. Mechanized transmission. But you knew that. No, the righteous Reverend is on for reasons most mortals can only speculate on. My guess: pictures of network heads with barn owls, miscellaneous blackmail, who knows. But it sure as hell ain’t talent. He redefines the depths of bad, real bad. Amateurish at a new level. Horrid. Dreck. I’ve seen hostage videos with more persuasive soul than Al at his relative best. Wow.
So, why’s he not in jail? Great question. The New York Times piece on his Eminence, the tax prevaricator and BFF of POTUS’s and AG’s, the Geppetto to de Blasio’s Pinocchio, NYPD Commish Bill Bratton’s boss, provides a bill of particulars that would land you or me in the hoosegow without a doubt, yet he remains unscathed. “The recent Treasury report that called that sort of practice abusive also said only 1,200 organizations in the nation owed more than $100,000 in unpaid payroll taxes, which would put Mr. Sharpton’s group among the most delinquent nonprofit organizations in the nation.”
MSNBC has all but invited this embarrassment. As the Erik Wemple Blog has reported, Sharpton negotiated his contract with MSNBC under the stipulation that his work as an activist would continue. In remarks in D.C. last year, Sharpton recalled what he told MSNBC President Phil Griffin about his status: “I said, well, I’m still going to run NAN, I’m still going to be an activist.” Griffin responded positively. “He said, ‘Put it in the contract. We’d never interfere with what you’re doing, your civil rights work,’” Sharpton quoted Griffin as saying.
On one level, Sharpton’s various hats carry implications for the ethics of his work at MSNBC. Being an anchor on a news network while also serving as a big shot at the White House and the head of a civil rights group creates a jumble of undiagrammable — and almost unknowable — conflicts of interest.
Yet the other level of concern is precisely what the Times has exposed: Sharpton Inc. is a sprawling concern, clearly more than one overbooked man can handle. By employing Sharpton as a prominent figure in its news rotation, MSNBC must own the failings of his empire. A spokeswoman for MSNBC says the network has no comment on the situation.
And then there’s Lemon. A lemon historically was “a person who is a loser, a simpleton,” which is perhaps from the notion of someone a sharper can “suck the juice out of.” Don Lemon is a cretin. A Boeotian. A dullard of Olympic proportion. This is the same feller who posited a black hole as a source of missing MH370. Well, Ol’ Don may have out “Don” himself in this latest snafu.
Speaking with putative rape victim Joan Tarshis, a woman who recently accused Bill Cosby of sexually assaulting her 45 years ago, the doltish Don cleverly asked her why she didn’t use her teeth as “a weapon” while being forced to perform oral sex on the comedian. You can’t make this up.
Lemon: Can I ask you this, because — and please, I don’t mean to be crude, ok?
Lemon: Because I know some of you — and you said this last night, that he — you lied to him and said “I have an infection, and if you rape me, or if you do — if you have intercourse with me, then you will probably get it and give it to your wife.”
Lemon: And you said he made you perform oral sex.
Lemon: You know, there are ways not to perform oral sex if you didn’t want to do it.
Tarshis: Oh. Um, I was kind of stoned at the time, and quite honestly, that didn’t even enter my mind. Now I wish it would have.
Lemon: Right. Meaning the using of the teeth, right?
Tarshis: Yes, that’s what I’m thinking you’re —
Lemon: As a weapon.
Tarshis: Yeah, I didn’t even think of it.
Lemon: Yes. I had to ask. I mean, it is, yeah.
Tarshis: Yes. No, it didn’t cross my mind.
And finally, Charles Manson’s tying the knot. In a country where 17 states have prohibited same-sex intragender marriage, an 80-year-old notorious convicted killer can marry a 25 year-old named “Star.” Think about it. The Menendez Brothers and Charlie can traipse down the proverbial aisle in matrimonium ducere, but a respectable gay couple can’t. Are you mind-boggled? You should be. This is our society. Our demented society.
This kid. Is taking no chances. And you have to respect that. After all leporiphobes and kouneliophobes, and their often paralyzing fear of the ostensibly evil mutant bunnies, can miss the comedic and artistic intention. Hare today, gone tomorrow, right? Look at the expression, the affect of his kid. It’s perfect. Trepidation meets embarrassment meets horror. I am the eggman, they are the eggmen. I am the walrus. As Elena Anaya quipped, “I can hypnotize rabbits.” Am I making any sense? Too bad.
Full disclosure. No, I didn’t spend any appreciable time talking about this kid. Instead I discuss the accusations anent and regarding Bill Cosby as to rape allegations. What took so long for anyone to take notice of them? When does a story take legs and become significant and verifiable enough for media exposure? A discussion herein as to the architecture of scandal.
Truth is a luxury. This was Tom Wilkinson’s line in 2011’s “The Debt,” a suspense thriller of espionage, morality, courage and patriotism. It’s a remake of the award-winning 2007 film “Ha-Hov” by Assaf Bernstein & Ido Rosenblum. And a fascinating discussion of what happens when the official story that inspires a nation is wrong or, worse, a blatant lie. It inspires me to think about co-opting truth as a symbol and label and meme. Truth. Verity. The absolutely real. Authentic. Accurate.
Truthers. I’m not one per se, though I share many of their points of view, but hats off to those who grabbed the meme as their own. In today’s double-parked attention span, whoever seizes the best label and imagery, wins. Look at the conservatives who nabbed family, flag, Gawd, patriotism, Reagan and the Eagle. (While the progressives took what again as their symbols?)
Verity, anyone? And it all begs the question: What is the truth? The unvarnished and absolute and pure and clean and not subject to obfuscation or the like? Tell me true and pure history without perspective. Tell me the history of the Vietnam War — from the point of view of the Vietnamese. History, like incest, is relative.
This is what I discuss herein.