Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
April 23, 2014, 10:28:44 PM
Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Politics & Religion
Armed and Unarmed Resistance?
Topic: Armed and Unarmed Resistance? (Read 141 times)
Armed and Unarmed Resistance?
April 14, 2014, 12:21:49 PM »
The recent events in Nevada concerning the rancher Bundy, his cattle, BLM, grazing fees to the Feds, and the presence of armed militia have been of great concern to me. Most of us here believe in the Second Amendment, and understand that it is not about hunting or self-defense alone-- It is about defense of the nation from all enemires foreign and domestic, including if need be a government gone tyrannical.
This thread is for matters concerning where where that grey line may be.
In the case of the moment, as sympathetic as many of the apparent facts are for Bundy (his family has been grazing there since 1877, the apparent bull excrement nature of the tortoise story the Feds are putting out (apparently the Feds have bred so many turtles they are now killing some of them) The Feds owning/controlling some 84% of Nevada, etc there are many warning flags here. Apparently Bundy has unique legal theories disregarding settled law regarding the Feds and BLM. He has lost in court for some 20 years now. I doubt hardly anyone on his side could give an accurate summary of the courts' various rulings in the case on what the law is.
And for this militia types are willing to show up talking about shooting it out with the Feds?
As this forum well attests, my loathing for much that is being done to our country by the Federal government is open and obvious. That said, the rule of law is a precious thing, and not to be tossed away lightly. A civil society, a Constitutional Republic, requires that everyone sometimes accept what they believe to be a mistaken court ruling.
As additional facts come to light, I reserve the right to change my mind, but with what I have at the moment, is some people have allowed their passion to override good sense and they came very close to setting off something that would have given the Feds the opening for which they desperately and not always legally search to shut down our freedoms. I am very glad that cooler heads seem to have prevailed at BLM. I am concerned that many regular folks will form negative impressions of the Tea Party and related factions (militia types) based upon the foolish hot-headedness that seems to have been on display here.
Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 10:53:08 AM by Crafty_Dog
Re: Armed Resistance?
Reply #1 on:
April 14, 2014, 03:45:05 PM »
Re: Armed Resistance?
Reply #2 on:
April 14, 2014, 04:23:26 PM »
Reply #3 on:
April 14, 2014, 05:30:57 PM »
Signs in Arizona warn of smuggler dangers
Drivers advised to travel north
By Jerry Seper and Matthew Cella
The Washington Times
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The federal government has posted signs along a major interstate highway in Arizona, more than 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers, and a local sheriff says Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state.
The signs were posted by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
along a 60-mile stretch of Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, a major east-west corridor linking Tucson and Phoenix with San Diego.
They warn travelers that they are entering an “active drug and human smuggling area” and they may encounter “armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed.” Beginning less than 50 miles south of Phoenix, the signs encourage travelers to “use public lands north of Interstate 8” and to call 911 if they “see suspicious activity.”
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, whose county lies at the center of major drug and alien smuggling routes to Phoenix and cities east and west, attests to the violence. He said his deputies are outmanned and outgunned by drug traffickers in the rough-hewn desert stretches of his own county.
“Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona,” he said. “They literally have scouts on the high points in the mountains and in the hills and they literally control movement. They have radios, they have optics, they have night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has.
“This is going on here in Arizona,” he said. “This is 70 to 80 miles from the border - 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States.”
He said he asked the Obama administration for 3,000 National Guard soldiers to patrol the border, but what he got were 15 signs.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer condemned what she called the federal government’s “continued failure to secure our international border,” saying the lack of security has resulted in important natural recreational areas in her state being declared too dangerous to visit.
In a recent campaign video posted to YouTube, Mrs. Brewer - standing in front of one of the BLM signs - attacked the administration over the signs, calling them “an outrage” and telling President Obama to “Do your job. Secure our borders.”
BLM spokesman Dennis Godfrey in Arizona said agency officials were surprised by the reaction the signs generated when they were put up this summer.
“We were perhaps naive in setting the signs up,” he said. “The intention of the signs was to make the public aware that there is potential illegal activity here. But it was interpreted in a different light, and that was not the intent at all.”
He said there should be “no sense that we have ceded the land,” adding that no BLM lands in Arizona are closed to the public.
“I kind of liken it to if I were visiting a city I were not familiar with and asked a policeman if it were safe to go in a particular area,” Mr. Godfrey said.
Rising violence along the border has coincided with a crackdown in Mexico on warring drug gangs, who are seeking control of smuggling routes into the United States.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has waged a bloody campaign against powerful cartels, yesterday announcing the arrest of Texas-born Edgar “La Barbie” Valdez - a powerful cartel leader captured outside of Mexico City on Monday evening.
More than 28,000 people have died since Mr. Calderon launched his crackdown in late 2006, and the bloodshed shows no sign of ending. Law enforcement authorities have been warning for more than two years that the dramatic rise in border violence eventually would spread into the U.S.
T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,500 of the Border Patrol’s front-line agents, said areas well north of the border are so overrun by armed criminals that U.S. citizens are being warned to keep out of those locations.
“The federal government’s lack of will to secure our borders is painfully evident when signs are posted well north of the border warning citizens that armed and dangerous criminals are roaming through those areas with impunity,” he said. “Instead of taking the steps necessary to secure our borders, politicians are attempting to convince the public that our borders are more secure now than ever before.
“Fortunately, some responsible civil servants are candidly warning the public about the dangers that exist not just along the border but, in some cases, well beyond,” he said. “This situation should alarm all sensible people, and should spur endless demands that our legislators take whatever actions are necessary to restore law and order to these areas.”
Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees, said the federal government’s new border security plan apparently is to “erect some signs telling you it’s not safe to travel in our own country.”
“If you are planning on loading up the station wagon and taking the kids to Disneyland, the federal government doesn’t advise going through Arizona - it’s too dangerous and they can’t protect you,” said Mr. Poe. “These signs say to American citizens, the federal government has ceded this area to the drug cartels. Don’t come here; we can’t protect you.”
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, called the signs “an insult to the citizens of border states.”
“American citizens should not have to be fearful for their lives on U.S. soil,” he said. “If the federal government would do its job of enforcing immigration laws, we could better secure the border and better protect the citizens of border states.”
Michael W. Cutler, a retired 31-year U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) senior criminal investigator and intelligence specialist, said the BLM warning signs suggest the U.S. government is “ceding American territory to armed criminals and smugglers.”
Meanwhile, he said, politicians in Washington, D.C., including Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, continue to claim the border is now more secure than ever and, as a result, it is time for comprehensive immigration reform.
“How much more land will our nation cede to drug dealers and terrorists? At what point will the administration understand its obligations to really secure our nation’s borders and create an immigration system that has real integrity?” Mr. Cutler said.
“At the rate we are going, the ‘Red, White and Blue’ of the American flag will be replaced with a flag that is simply white - the flag of surrender.”
Ms. Napolitano said this week that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would begin flying a Predator B drone out of Corpus Christi, Texas, on Wednesday, extending the reach of the agency’s unmanned surveillance aircraft across the length of the 1,956-mile border with Mexico.
Last month, Mr. Obama signed a $600 million bill to beef up security along the southwestern border. The bill funds 1,000 more Border Patrol agents, as well as 250 CBP officers and two more unmanned aerial vehicles.
Two years ago, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the investigative arm of Homeland Security, said in a report that border gangs were becoming increasingly ruthless and had begun targeting not only rivals, but federal, state and local police. ICE said the violence had risen dramatically as part of “an unprecedented surge.”
The Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center, in its 2010 drug threat assessment report, called the cartels “the single greatest drug trafficking threat to the United States.” It said Mexican gangs had established operations in every area of the United States and were expanding into rural and suburban areas. It said assaults against U.S. law enforcement officers along the southwestern border were on the increase - up 46 percent against Border Patrol agents alone.
At the same time, the Justice Department brought a lawsuit to stop a new immigration enforcement law in Arizona, saying it violated the Constitution by trying to supersede federal law and by impairing illegal immigrants’ right to travel and conduct interstate commerce.
Mr. Cutler said it was “outrageous” for the BLM to direct travelers to dial 911 to report suspicious activities since the calls do not go to the federal government but to state and local police. He said the signs are telling Americans to call state and local law enforcement authorities to deal with border lawlessness while at the same time telling Arizona that only the federal government can write and enforce immigration laws.
“You can’t make this stuff up,” he said.
Mr. Godfrey said that just because the signs direct travelers who witness illegal activity to call 911, “that does not mean that only a local agency will respond.”
“The idea is that people will get help as quickly as they can,” he said.
Sheriff Babeu has dealt firsthand with the rising violence in his county since his 2008 election. One of his deputies, Louie Puroll, was shot and critically wounded in April after he spotted five men he suspected of transporting drugs along a remote span of desert near Interstate 8 and Arizona 84.
He said his experience makes him see the issue differently from the administration in Washington.
“The president is only looking at this from a political perspective,” he said. “Everything is not fine. Everything is not OK.”
Protect the tortoises?
Reply #4 on:
April 14, 2014, 05:44:39 PM »
Desert Tortoises Threatened With Euthanasia Plan
August 30, 1991|PAUL FELDMAN | TIMES STAFF WRITER
The desert tortoise, a federally protected species since 1989, faces a new threat in the quickly developing Las Vegas Valley--euthanasia.
Under a plan approved by county and federal officials that is due to take effect in early September, tortoises living on Las Vegas-area properties slated for construction will be removed to a Clark County animal care center. Those that are not adopted or relocated within five days will be killed by lethal injection.
Authorities, who say that adequate funding is unavailable to hold the tortoises longer, say that the odds are in favor of most of the reptiles being saved by concerned Clark County residents.
"It sounds worse than it actually is," said federal Bureau of Land Management wildlife biologist Michael McGill on Thursday. "There's a pretty good chance they'll get adopted. Most of them will find a home."
The euthanasia plan is part of a larger compromise reached by county and federal officials that will help provide funds and land to preserve a natural habitat for more than 60,000 desert tortoises in more pristine areas of Nevada, authorities said.
For its part, Clark County has agreed to purchase the rights to use more than 400,000 acres of BLM land as a desert tortoise preserve. For the next three years, the land, much of it near Searchlight, would be off limits to off-road vehicles. Authorities would also ward off birds that eat thin-shelled baby tortoises.
More than $6 million would be provided to purchase the land rights and establish a trust fund from fees assessed to Las Vegas developers, who will also be charged $40 per tortoise for the housing at the animal care center.
In exchange, developers will be allowed to remove the tortoises from their own land.
Since 1989, it has been illegal to take, harm or kill a desert tortoise without a federal permit. In the Las Vegas valley, construction was forced to a standstill on properties where the tortoises resided.
Officials said the Las Vegas tortoises--as many as 3,000 are expected to be uncovered by developers in the next three years--will not be relocated in the Searchlight habitat. Doing so could result in overpopulation. Also, they said, many of the Vegas tortoises suffer from a respiratory disease that might be passed on to their rural cousins.
"This was the compromise we felt we had to come up with when there was a limited amount of money to be spent," said Betty Burge, chairwoman of the Tort Group, a Las Vegas-based tortoise conservation organization.
However, the agreement has stirred questions among other tortoise preservationists.
"That's saying that development will take place no matter what and development should be slowed down until you can figure out that 'what,' " said Elden Hughes, chairman of the Sierra Club's California Desert Committee. "You should find a place where you can put the tortoises. . . . I'm sure they have enough money to put researchers on it."
Palm Springs attorney Paul Selzer, who represented Clark County in the negotiations for the federal permit, said the rules occasionally led to bizarre situations.
"You ended up with this weird deal where two pieces of property were next to each other and one had a tortoise and one didn't. So one guy developed and what do you think happened to the desert tortoise next door? The neighborhood kids picked it up, or a dog got it, or it went in the street and got run over."
Selzer said that long-range efforts will be made to relocate Vegas-vicinity tortoises in the wild, but that it is not clear whether the tortoises can be moved successfully in the wild. "You can't just pick these dudes up and corral them and put them back in the desert," he said.
Reply #5 on:
April 14, 2014, 11:28:11 PM »
Quote from: G M on April 14, 2014, 05:30:57 PM
Signs in Arizona warn of smuggler dangers
This story is amazing. The Feds concede the loss of control, turn it to state and local authorities and then ban them from any enforcement. If it's not safe or secure 75 miles in, then its not safe anywhere - it's not like we have another line of defense somewhere further in.
Sen Harry Reid's role in all this
Reply #6 on:
April 15, 2014, 11:14:47 AM »
Sympathy for Bundy
Reply #7 on:
April 15, 2014, 03:06:00 PM »
Re: Armed Resistance?
Reply #8 on:
April 15, 2014, 10:39:07 PM »
Re: Armed Resistance?
Reply #9 on:
April 17, 2014, 02:32:43 AM »
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
April 15, 2014 4:00 PM
The Case for a Little Sedition
The Bundy standoff reminds us that government is our servant, not our master.
By Kevin D. Williamson
A great deal of the discussion about the Cliven Bundy standoff in Nevada has focused on the legal questions — the litigation between Mr. Bundy and the BLM, his eccentric (i.e., batzoid) legal rationales, etc. But as Rich Lowry and others have argued, this is best understood not as a legal proceeding but as an act of civil disobedience. John
Hinderaker and Rich both are correct that as a legal question Mr. Bundy is legless. But that is largely beside the point.
Of course the law is against Cliven Bundy. How could it be otherwise? The law was against Mohandas Gandhi, too, when he was tried for sedition; Mr. Gandhi himself habitually was among the first to acknowledge that fact, refusing to offer a defense in his sedition case and arguing that the judge had no choice but to resign, in protest of the perfectly legal injustice unfolding in his courtroom, or to sentence him to the harshest sentence possible, there being no extenuating circumstances for Mr. Gandhi’s intentional violation of the law. Henry David Thoreau was happy to spend his time in jail, knowing that the law was against him, whatever side justice was on.
But not all dissidents are content to submit to what we, in the Age of Obama, still insist on quaintly calling “the rule of law.” And there is a price to pay for that, too: King George not only would have been well within his legal rights to hang every one of this nation’s seditious Founding Fathers, he would have been duty-bound to do so, the keeping of the civil peace being the first responsibility of the civil authority. Every fugitive slave, and every one of the sainted men and women who harbored and enabled them, was a law-breaker, and who can blame them if none was content to submit to what passed for justice among the slavers? The situation was less dramatic during the government shutdown, but every one of the veterans and cheesed-off citizens who disregarded President Obama’s political theater and pushed aside his barricades was a law-breaker, too — and bless them for being that.
Harry Reid, apparently eager for somebody to play the role of General Dyer in this civil-disobedience drama, promises that this is “not over.” And, in a sense, it can’t be over: The theory of modern government is fundamentally Hobbesian in its insistence that where political obedience is demanded, that demand must be satisfied lest we regress into bellum omnium contra omnes. I myself am of the view that there is a great deal of real estate between complete submission and civil war, and that acts such as Mr. Bundy’s are not only bearable in a free republic but positively salubrious. Unhappily, those views are not shared by many in Washington, and, if I were a wagering sort, my money would be on Mr. Bundy ending up dead or in prison, with a slight bias in the odds toward death.
Mohandas Gandhi and George Washington both were British subjects who believed that their legal situation was at odds with something deeper and more meaningful, and that the British were a legal authority but an alien power. (Washington is not really so much closer to London than New Delhi is.) Mr. Bundy is tapping into a longstanding tendency in the American West to view the federal government as a creature of the eastern establishment, with political and economic interests that are inimical to those of the West and its people. And it is not as though there is no evidence supporting that suspicion. The federal government controls 87 percent of the land in Nevada, something that would be unheard-of in any state east of Colorado. Uncle Sam owns less than 1 percent of the land in New York, 1 percent of Maine, less than 1 percent of Rhode Island, less than 1 percent of Connecticut, but nearly half of New Mexico and Arizona, more than half of Utah and Idaho, and is practically a monopolist in Nevada. And a monopolist is rarely a good and honest negotiating partner. The original Sagebrush rebels objected to conservation rules written by eastern environmentalists who had never so much as set foot in the lands they were disposing of; a century and some later, people travel more, but the underlying dynamic is the same.
There are of course questions of prudence and proportion to be answered here, and though I note that he uses the very strong phrase “lawless government,” I sympathize with Mr. Lowry’s desire that both sides should follow the law. But there is a more important question here: Is government our servant, or is it our master? The Left has long ago answered that question to the satisfaction of its partisans, who are happy to be serfs so long as their birth control is subsidized. But the Right always struggles with that question, as it must. The thing that conservatives seek to conserve is the American order, which (1) insists that we are to be governed by laws rather than by men and (2) was born in a violent revolution. Russell Kirk described the conservative ideal as “ordered liberty,” and that is indeed what we must aim for — keeping in mind that it is order that serves liberty, not the other way around. And it is the government that exists at the sufferance of the people, including such irascible ones as Mr. Bundy, not the other way around.
If the conservatives in official Washington want to do something other than stand by and look impotent, they might consider pressing for legislation that would oblige the federal government to divest itself of 1 percent of its land and other real estate each year for the foreseeable future through an open auction process. Even the Obama administration has identified a very large portfolio of office buildings and other federal holdings that are unused or under-used. By some estimates, superfluous federal holdings amount to trillions of dollars in value. Surely not every inch of that 87 percent of Nevada under the absentee-landlordship of the federal government is critical to the national interest. Perhaps Mr. Bundy would like to buy some land where he can graze his cattle.
Prudential measures do not solve questions of principle. So where does that leave us with our judgment of the Nevada insurrection? Perhaps with an understanding that while Mr. Bundy’s stand should not be construed as a general template for civic action, it is nonetheless the case that, in measured doses, a little sedition is an excellent thing.
— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent for National Review.
McCarthy: Bundy and the Rule of Law
Reply #10 on:
April 20, 2014, 10:43:29 AM »
Bundy and the Rule of Law
By Andrew C. McCarthy
April 16, 2014 5:04 PM
I agree with David and Rich that John Hinderaker’s Bundy post is very strong. As a matter of law, Cliven Bundy is in the wrong. He is nevertheless a sympathetic figure, and the concerns raised by the standoff in Nevada transcend the illegality of his conduct.
Rich’s recollection of Lincoln’s exhortation that reverence for the law become “the political religion of the nation” triggered my recollection of a seemingly inconsistent speech Lincoln delivered as president nearly a quarter-century later. As the Civil War raged, the president very controversially suspended the writ of habeas corpus and imposed martial law in states where Confederate operatives and sympathizers were taking seditious action. Addressing Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln defended his suspension of the writ:
Of course some consideration was given to the questions of power and propriety before this matter was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen’s liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited extent be violated? To state the question more directly, are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?
Now, it was only advisedly that I described this speech as “seemingly” inconsistent with the one Rich excerpted. For one thing, Lincoln did not believe his suspension of the writ violated the law, and he had a very colorable argument. The Constitution provides for the writ’s suspension in cases of rebellion or invasion; it does not say who may suspend it. The Supreme Court’s eventual conclusion (in the 1866 case of Ex Parte Milligan) that Congress must enact a suspension because the relevant clause is in Article I was sensible, but it was not indisputable. Lincoln was not without reason to believe that he had the necessary authority as long as a rebellion or invasion had occurred. Moreover, Lincoln’s passion for the rule of law was evident even in the act of arguably breaking it: He not only vigorously contended that his suspension was lawful; he also urged Congress to affirm the suspension by passing legislation (which Congress did in 1863).
But all that said, Lincoln’s speech does justify law-breaking in extraordinary circumstances. I’d construe his argument as follows: Even if what I have done is unlawful, it was necessary because it was done for the higher purpose of preserving the system that protects our liberties—under dire circumstances where violating the law was more faithful to the Constitution than obeying it would have been.
Many of us think Lincoln was right—I certainly do, and I even suspect the Supreme Court did (note that the suspension was invalidated only after the war was over). This informs our assessment of the situation in Nevada, and explains why Bundy gets our sympathetic consideration even if we cannot absolve his illegal conduct.
The underlying assumption of our belief in the rule of law is that we are talking about law in the American tradition: provisions that obligate everyone equally and that are enforced dispassionately by a chief executive who takes seriously the constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully. The rule of law is not the whim of a man who himself serially violates the laws he finds inconvenient and who, under a distortion of the “prosecutorial discretion” doctrine, gives a pass to his favored constituencies while punishing his opposition. The rule of law is the orderly foundation of our free society; when it devolves into a vexatious process by which ideologues wielding power undertake to tame those whose activities they disfavor, it is not the rule of law anymore.
The legitimacy of law and our commitment to uphold it hinge on our sense that the law and its execution are just. As John Hinderaker points out, concerns about the desert tortoise—the predicate for taking lawful action against Nevada ranchers under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)—turn out to be pretextual. The ideologues who run the government only want to enforce the ESA against a disfavored class, the ranchers. If you’re a well-connected Democrat who needs similar land for a solar project, the Obama administration will not only refrain from enforcing the ESA against you; it will transport the tortoises to the ranchers’ location in order to manufacture a better pretext for using the law to harass the ranchers.
When law becomes a politicized weapon rather than a reflection of society’s shared principles, one can no longer expect it to be revered in a manner befitting “political religion.” And when the officials trusted to execute law faithfully violate laws regularly, they lose their presumption of legitimacy. Much of the public is not going to see the Feds versus Bundy as the Law versus the Outlaw; we are more apt to see it as the Bully versus the Small Fry.
Justice Scalia: At a certain point, you should revolt
Reply #11 on:
April 20, 2014, 10:54:01 AM »
A bit of levity
Reply #12 on:
April 20, 2014, 12:11:26 PM »
Re: Armed and Unarmed Resistance?
Reply #13 on:
April 21, 2014, 08:27:21 AM »
Haven't had a chance to look at this yet (clip is 37 minutes!) but it alleges to have found proof of Dingy Harry having direct financial interest in the land around Bundy.
Anyone care to take a look at this?
Interesting interview re Bundy Ranch
Reply #14 on:
April 21, 2014, 05:54:43 PM »
Waiting for the feds to show up and collect on Sharpton's debts...
Reply #15 on:
April 21, 2014, 06:26:11 PM »
Revealed: Obama's friend and civil rights firebrand Rev. Al Sharpton was a paid FBI informant who wore wire to trap Genovese, Gambino family wiseguys
Sharpton has been a political ally of Barack Obama for two decades, and the president will speak to his civil rights group this week
That group, the National Action Network, owes the government a reported $1.9 million in back taxes and penalties related to a 2006 tax investigation
New allegations claim Sharpton worked as an FBI informant against organized crime in the 1980s
His work was said to have been instrumental in putting Genovese family bosses in prison
He claimed in an interview on Saturday that he wasn't an FBI snitch but refused to specifically deny taping conversations with a mafia capo
ByDavid Martosko, U.s. Political Editor
Published: 16:27 EST, 7 April 2014 | Updated: 08:44 EST, 8 April 2014
Rev. Al Shaprton, the controversial civil rights leader-turned-broadcaster, was a confidential FBi informant for years and helped the feds put members of the Genovese and Gambino organized crime families behind bars, it was revealed Monday in a sensational exposé.
President Barack Obama will speak this week for the second time at the annual meeting of Sharpton's National Action Network.
New allegations published by The Smoking Gun allege that beginning in the 1980s, Sharpton worked as an informant for many years on mob groups for an organized crime task force made up of FBI agents and detectives with the New York Police Department.
In fact it was some of those investigators who gave Sharpton up, providing the documents to the website known for seeding the Internet with groundbreaking papers exposing details of court cases that embarass celebrities.
Sharpton has been part of President Obama's inner circle since his days as an Illinois state legislator -- long before the wayward reverend defended his friend nightly on MSNBC
Vincent 'Chin' Gigante (C) was a Genovese crime family boss who pretended to be mentally ill in order to escape responsibility for his crimes -- but Sharpton helped foil his plot when he taped other mob figures discussing the ruse
Checkered past: A more hirsute Sharpton (in blue track suit, C) advised the rape-hoaxer Tawana Brawley in 1998 and led marches on her behalf before her claims were unmasked as a fraud
ne Gambino crime family figure became so comfortable with the protest leader that he spoke openly – during ten wired face-to-face meetings – about a wide range of mob business,' The Smoking Gun reported Monday.
That included everything 'from shylocking and extortions to death threats and the sanity of Vincent "Chin" Gigante, the Genovese boss who long feigned mental illness in a bid to deflect law enforcement scrutiny.
'As the mafioso expounded on these topics, Sharpton’s briefcase--a specially customized Hartman model – recorded his every word.'
Sharpton denied his law enforcement ties on Saturday when The Smoking Gun asked him point-blank about it.
He claimed his only link with the FBI was related to drug dealing cases in minority communities and recording industry efforts to cheat black artists in the recording industry.
Al Sharpton condemns 'shop and frisk' at Manhattan stores and threatens direct action against Barneys after racial profiling claims
Sharpton leads march over 'stand your ground' law
RFK Jr slammed 'creepy' Al Sharpton and said Andrew Cuomo lacked humanity in diary where he kept a ranking system of all of the women he had sex with
'I'm his girlfriend': Rev. Al Sharpton dating 35-year-old stylist after 24-year marriage
They are violent gangsters who kill, traffic drugs and kidnap...but new research reveals Mafia mobsters are NOT all psychopaths
But when asked whether he recorded his conversations with a Gambino mob family member, he would only say, 'I'm not saying yes, I’m not saying no.'
Veteran investigators who tracked Genovese crime family members for a living told The Smoking Gun that Sharpton, now 59, brought a specially-equipped Hartman briefcase to meetings with that mobster, recording the conversations and later handing the tapes over to the feds.
Sharpton's National Action Network, which will host Obama on Friday, has skirted responsibility for $1.9 million in back taxes and penalties it has owed the IRS since a 2006 investigation into improper tax reporting.
He also owes more than $888,000 in personal debts related to a failed 2004 presidential campaign, and $100,000 more in related debts to the federal government.
There are strong personal ties between Sharpton and Barack Obama, including several Oval office visits on topics as diverse as jobs and education – mostly with other black community leaders.
Sharpton was also on hand for first lady Michelle Obama's 50th birthday party as a guest of hte Obamas. And he had a seat near the guest of honor at a State Dinner this year honoring French President Francois Hollande.
He brought his girlfriend, a woman barely half his age.
Vincent 'Chin' Gigante died in 2005 while serving a 12 year prison sentence after finally admitting he wasn't insane. This mug shot dates from 1960, when he was convicted at age 32 of helping mob boss Vito Genovese run a narcotics ring
Rev. Al Sharpton, president of the National Action Network, commands the attention of leaders like New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (center R) and police commissioner William Bratton (C) , perhaps because he has helped the city make cases against mob bosses
But court affidavits and other papers The Smoking Gun published on Monday indicate that he also provided information to federal investigators that helped them persuade judges to authorize phone tapping and audio bugs at two Genovese family 'social clubs,' including Vincent Gigante’s headquarters in New York City's Greenwich Village.
They also put bugs in three cars and more than a dozen phone lines, largely because of information Sharpton provided, yielding information used in a major racketeering case against the Genoveses.
One such case targeted Federico 'Fritzy' Giovanelli, a Genovese soldier was drew a 20 years in prison sentence for racketeering; recordings made because of information Sharpton provided were played in open court.
Giovanelli later said he had no idea Sharpton was related to his case. 'Poor Sharpton,' he laughed: 'He cleaned up his life and you want to ruin him.'
The Smoking Gun claimed Monday that Sharpton became an FBI informant after he was 'flipped' – meaning that he was promised special legal treatment - perhaps immunity from prosecution - in exchange for his cooperation.
That case reportedly involved a 1983 sting operation aimed at boxing promoter Don King, who was convicted on second-degree murder in 1966, a host of elected officials, 'and several powerful New York hoodlums involved in concert promotion, record distribution, and talent management.'
President Barack Obama spoke at the 20th anniversary National Action Network Gala on April 6, 2011, and plans to return this week for a repeat performance
Golden boy: Sharpton has been untouchable despite his group's tax debts and his $888,000 in personal debts related to a failed 2004 presidential campaign
The White House did not respond to a question about whether the president will keep his speaking engagement at the National Action Network.
That group also did not respond to a request for comment.
Sharpton claimed in his 2013 book 'The Rejected Stone' that he never informed for the government, saying that any attempt to paint him as a snitch was a ploy to squelch his loud voice in the civil rights movement.
He was once 'set up by the government,' he said, when agents leaked 'false information' that 'could have gotten me killed.'
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
More on Sharpton
Reply #16 on:
April 21, 2014, 06:31:30 PM »
Sharpton was ‘eager to get slice of 1980s coke deal’: pal
By Frank Rosario
April 12, 2014 | 2:33am
Left: President Obama shakes hand with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Sheraton New York Friday. Right: Robert Curington gives The Post his account of how Sharpton ended up recording mob conversations for the FBI. Photo: AP/Sammy Dallal
DURHAM, NC — A drug trafficker who worked for Al Sharpton’s nonprofit in the 1980s said that despite the preacher’s denials, he was eager to get a slice of the lucrative drug deal captured on FBI surveillance video.
“It was greed. He just wanted money,” Robert Curington, 72, told The Post during a two-day interview at his North Carolina home, detailing for the first time how Sharpton stepped into the FBI’s trap — and was then forced to become a federal informant.
Sharpton has said he showed interest in the drug deal only because he feared the undercover agent was armed. He also claimed that he snitched for the feds — as first reported by The Smoking Gun this week — because the mob was threatening him.
Curington called all of that a tall tale.
He instead provided a detailed account of how Sharpton wined and dined a man he thought was a South American drug lord — and said Sharpton met him not just once, but three times.
Sharpton’s saga began in the Manhattan offices of boisterous boxing big shot Don King in 1983, Curington said.
An unnamed felon trying to duck a 30-year prison sentence promised the feds he could help them nail King on coke-dealing charges.
An undercover FBI agent, using the name Victor Quintana, set up a meeting with King to discuss a boxing match in the Bahamas — but King had a bad feeling about the potential business partner and pawned him off on Sharpton.
Don King in 2002.Photo: Reuters
“King was sly — he knew something was off about this,” Curington said. “So he kept him downstairs and let his new best friend Al Sharpton talk to him.”
Sharpton was eager to help, and “would spend cash taking him to dinner and chauffeur him around in a limo, feeling him out,” Curington said.
Then, at a restaurant, “they are talking and cutting their steaks. The agent’s voice changes, midstream, and he says, ‘I know where 10 kilos of cocaine are and we can make some big money on this.’
“Sharpton didn’t roll alone — he had a friend or adviser with him who says, ‘Hold it! This meeting is over. You come in here talking about boxing and now you’re gonna talk about cocaine? Let’s go, Al. We’re not into that.’
“Sharpton was hesitant to leave,” Curington remembered. “I believe he wanted to hear him out, but he listened to his friend.”
Sharpton met with Quintana a second time, in a hotel. Again, cocaine came up, and Sharpton’s pals called off the meeting.
At the third meeting with Quintana, Sharpton made sure to go alone — wearing a cowboy hat and chomping on an unlit cigar, which was made famous in footage from the FBI surveillance leaked in 2002.
“The agent said you would get $3,500 per kilo,” said Curington, who was not at the meetings but was told about them by Sharpton.
“Sharpton moved on it, and they sprung the trap on him right away. They got him.
“Al told me himself. He bit and took the bait.”
“He was like two people. He ran around trying to score money for his National Youth Movement. But you can’t be an activist and an opportunist.”
And once he was caught, he had no choice but to wear a wire to save his ample hide from prison.
“Sharpton said they could do whatever they wanted with him after that,” Curington said. “Because they had him. Either he worked for them or they put that news out there that he was into coke.”
Curington, a former record producer and music promoter who served two years in prison in the late 1970s on drug charges, served as an executive at Sharpton’s National Youth Movement in the 1980s.
Sharpton said on Friday that it is “not true” that he was at three separate meetings with the undercover agent where cocaine was discussed.
“Bob Curington is blatantly wrong,” said Sharpton, adding that if the repeated meetings were true, he could have claimed entrapment by the government.
He also claimed again that he became a snitch not because of the drug sting, but because of threats by the mob.
Curington said the activist put on a good show with his bluster and conviction — but inside, Sharpton was terrified of his FBI role, recording murderous mobsters like Joseph “Joe Bana” Buonanno.
“He was absolutely frightened about the job he had to do for the FBI,” Curington said. The feds trained Sharpton immediately, and “he didn’t know how to handle it.”
“He was really tormented. I told him, ‘You should have just listened to your advisers. Because you’re in deep.’ I said, ‘Why are you talking to these types of people?’ He was just greedy. It was all for money.”
Even as he preached against the ravages of crack cocaine on the inner city, Sharpton loved the white powder, Curington said.
When asked about his cocaine use, Sharpton said, “Absolutely, unequivocally no.”
Curington also said Sharpton only had money on his mind.
“He was like two people,” he said. “He ran around trying to score money for his National Youth Movement. But you can’t be an activist and an opportunist.”
Re: Armed and Unarmed Resistance?
Reply #17 on:
April 21, 2014, 09:11:14 PM »
Woof GM: I'm thinking the Sharpton stuff better belongs in the "Cog. Dis. of the Left" thread.
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
=> Espanol Discussion
Dog Brothers Information
=> Instructor Lists
=> Biographies & Instructor Details
Powered by SMF 1.1.19
SMF © 2013, Simple Machines