Violence is Anti-hate and Peaceful is Far Right–The Washington Post Gets in Touch With Its Inner Orwell.

There was more Leftist violence in Berkeley yesterday. But the media is doing its best to blur and control the narrative. According to the Washington Post, black-clad Antifa members, armed with sticks and shields are really “anti-hate” protesters, who jumped barriers and attacked a “peaceful” “far right” rally while Berkeley police largely stood aside. 
Read the article and see if you can figure out how Antifa earns the moniker “anti-hate” or what makes the admittedly peaceful marchers who got attacked “far right.” Maybe it’s that their march was to say “No to Marxism.” Shriek. Apparently, in Berkeley and the editorial offices of the Washington Post, that position makes them Aryan skinheads. But, at least the Post admitted they were peaceful and the violence started when the Antifa “anti-hate” protesters went on the attack.

Other media joined in the obfuscation, calling Antifa–which rejects capitalism and advocates communism–an “anarchist” group. It’s not clear how activists who want the government to control property, production, and distribution can be considered anarchists, unless all anarchist means these days is people who want to blow up American constitutional government and replace it with their utopian vision of government. Orwell should charge posthumous royalties.


Trump’s Arpaio Pardon–the Right Call; Here’s Why.

President Trump’s pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was reasonable and appropriate. In short, it was a political resolution to a political standoff. It was the last card in a clash instigated by the political policies of the prior US Administration, the political policies of an Arizona Sheriff, the political overreach of federal trial judges, and the trump card of a new president whose policies aligned with the sheriff rather than the prior administration.
Before I try to break all that down, let me acknowledge that the instant eruption of hot argument over the pardon is mostly detached from the facts that make up the story. Rather, it simply reflects a clash of two narratives. A) Vigorous border enforcement good; Obama administration weak; Arpaio a brave soldier; Presidential pardon good. vs. B) Vigorous border enforcement racist and xenophobic; Arpaio racist; Disobeys lawful court order; Lock him up.
First, and to be revisited later, Arpaio was not convicted by a jury of violating any law. He was sanctioned by a judge for disobeying the judge’s order. Those circumstances dispose of much normal due process, and essentially make the judge, judge, jury, and executioner. The bigger issue is that Trump critics believe this action just confirms his alleged racism and lawlessness, and are rushing to make it the next impeachment level frenzy. Let me also disclaim that I am writing this on the fly, working from recollection, and will need to go back to document and substantiate with links and possibly submit for outside publishing.
The merits here are more nuanced than the clashing narratives admit. Arpaio went out of retirement from law enforcement in 1992 to run for sheriff precisely to address what Maricopa perceived as a problem of rampant crime and lax border enforcement. President Obama’s record on immigration is complex and debated. Some, including Obama and his defenders when it’s convenient, cite a high level of deportations. However, if accurate, those numbers reflect not border security, but a focus on illegal immigrants who have violated criminal laws. The border itself, critics charge, became increasingly porous and in places in Texas and Arizona, a virtual lawless no man’s land and sometimes warzone.
The federal government has legal authority over immigration policy and enforcement. But, two complications come into play here. First, the policy and its enforcement should reflect the statutory law of the land, and not purely the whims of the current administration. Many in Arizona believed they were being neglected and sacrificed to the administration’s desire not to police and interdict border crossers.
Second, state and local law enforcement cannot establish or execute immigration policy, but, they have had the long recognized authority, when they come into contact with people illegally present in the US, to detain the people and hold them for apprehension by federal authorities. Arpaio was an enthusiast of this practice. The Obama administration was not an enthusiast of retrieving all the detainees Arpaio wanted it to claim. Among other related issues, it became something of a festering debate between Arizona and the United States, Arizona’s position being: “Enforce the damn law!” and the Administration’s position being: “We are the law.” Recall the spectacle of the faceoff between Obama and Governor Jan Brewer at the airport. Some of the coverage embarrassed the administration. Most of it was designed to embarrass Arizona and to demonize Arpaio.
In 2007, I believe, Arpaio had improperly detained for eight hours a Mexican immigrant who actually held a valid travel visa. The immigrant sued Arpaio for civil rights violations. The Obama administration intervened in the lawsuit and basically tried to tie Arpaio’s hands. Claiming absolute authority over immigration policy, the administration argued, and the judge bought, that Arizona had no authority detain people simply because of their illegal presence in Arizona. The administration asked for and the judge entered an order barring Arpaio from detaining illegal immigrants and trying to present them to ICE to take into custody.
This was essentially a lawless order constituting an “Arpaio Exception.” Any other police or sheriff department in the land could, when contacting an illegal immigrant in the course of ordinary law enforcement, whether traffic, domestic, or criminal, hold that person and notify the feds. But now, not Joe.
Arpaio’s Department said: “That’s nuts. We’re going to keep doing it.” And announced to the public they were going to keep doing it. And so, the clash between the sheriff and the feds continued for a number of years. Obama’s DOJ sought and obtained a finding of civil contempt against Arpaio. Arpio pressed on. Obama’s DOJ sought a criminal contempt citation. The first judge referred the matter for hearing to a different judge. In typically slimy political mode, DOJ brought the criminal complaint weeks before Arpaio’s run for reelection in 2016. Trial to a judge, not a jury, was in late October. Arpaio was convicted and lost reelection in early November. Trump won election the same day, in part running for strong border enforcement and against Obama’s immigration policies. The proceedings continued till the present and the 85 year old Arpaio was about to be sentenced, until Trump yesterday pardoned him.
People can and will think what they want about Arpaio and about Trump. As for the disposition of this case, I believe it was the right political outcome of a thoroughly political clash and that Arpaio does not belong in jail.

The Sad and Strange Colorado Case of Dylan Redwine Does Not Make Sense.

Something doesn’t make sense about the reporting on authorities’ decision to file charges against Mark Redwine in connection with the death of his son Dylan nearly five years ago.
Denver news sources reported last Saturday that Redwine had been arrested in Washington State and faced charges of 2nd degree murder and child abuse resulting in death. On Sunday, Denver’s Fox affiliate KDVR featured the comments of former FBI criminal profiler Pete Klismet. The La Plata County Sheriff’s office reportedly asked Klismet to review their case file to see where the evidence pointed. It was an extensive undertaking.
“I said don’t give me any hints on who I am supposed to be looking for. I want to look at this in an unbiased manner,” Klismet said.
He spent months combing through evidence and reports.
“You name it, I looked at it,” Klismet said.
The behavioral scientist also studied Mark Redwine’s behavior, including his appearance on the “Dr. Phil Show” in which Mark Redwine refused to take a lie detector test.
“In looking at the reports, the things Mark was saying didn’t seem to mix well with everything else,” Klismet said.
Klismet said he explored different options, but continued to come back to the same answer.
“I came to an inescapable conclusion. It had to be Mark,” Klismet said.
But this is puzzling. Profilers are commonly understood to help police try to identify the type of suspect they might be looking for. In this instance, Mark Redwine had long been declared “a person of interest” and police had ample reason to suspect Rewine. What could a profiler add to their files of evidence? Dylan had been with his father on a court-ordered visit. He disappeared. Redwine claimed he had been out running errands and a stranger snatched his son. But, Denver’s KMGH channel 7 reported the physical evidence against Redwine appeared daunting:
As they searched for evidence into the disappearance and death of the teenage boy, investigators found his blood in multiple locations inside his father’s home, including a couch, the corner of a coffee table, on the floor beneath a rug and on a love seat.
During another search, on Aug. 5, 2013, a K9 was introduced into the suspect’s home to find more clues into the boy’s death. The dog was able to sniff out the scent of a cadaver in various locations of Mark’s home, including the living room and the washing machine, as well as on the clothes Mark wore the night Dylan disappeared, the indictment shows.
On Feb. 13, 2014, another search with the K9 was conducted at Mark’s home, which pointed to the scent of a cadaver on Mark Redwine’s Dodge pick-up truck, including the bed of the truck.
Whether or not a trained dog’s indications are reliable or admissible, the investigators found Dylan’s blood throughout the house! A child is missing. He was in the custody of his father. His blood is found in multiple places throughout his father’s house.
What could have caused authorities not to file charges based on that evidence? What can a profiler tell them now that buttresses the ample evidence they already possessed? What evidence and arguments do they think they can present to a jury that they did not already have four years ago?
Something doesn’t make sense. This tragic case will be interesting to follow.