Newsletter subscribe

Features, Politics, Top Stories

Gays, guns, other distractions from Obama economy, Boston and Benghazi

man behind the curtain
Posted: May 2, 2013 at 7:45 am   /   by

Contrary to popular mainstream (liberal Democrat) media opinion, we are still waiting for an economic recovery and the first openly gay male player still active in the NBA, NFL and MLB.

le sueur peas

But Mike, over 100,000 jobs were “created” last month and Jason Collins of the Washington Wizards “came out.”

If only the same number of jobs that existed before the new jobs were created still existed; but alas, as we sit here in Month 52 of the Age of Obama, the total number of Americans employed is still less than the number employed on the last day of Month 96 of the Age of Bush43, i.e. the day before President Barack Obama’s First Inaugural. Remember that guy? You know, the Celebrity-in-Chief that was re-elected last year when a majority of voters decided that ex-President George W. Bush was still responsible for all problems economic or otherwise.

Still can’t quite place this Obama cat? Ok, he’s the guy that cut off questioning of the surviving Boston Bomber to congratulate a former NBA player for having the courage to call Sports Illustrated and admit that back during his playing days he was oriented to have sex with men. Remind you of recitations of the acts of valor by those awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor? Me neither.

Not sure yet if free agent Collins (note: Collins ‘came out’ the day AFTER his contract with the Wizards expired; he’s ‘active’ in the NBA like I am, and I’ve never played professional basketball apart from wagers on pick-up games at the YMCA, but I digress…) will be nominated for a CMOH or if former ACORN attorney Obama will serve as the 36-year old’s agent to try and find an NBA team to sign up a guy that averaged less than three points and rebounds combined last year. Hopefully Collins won’t also ‘come out’ against background checks for gun sales between gay non-gun dealer partners at gun shows lest we risk another Sandy Hook.

But then again, the gun used by the Connecticut mass murderer was registered with his mom. So, think a gay man will come out for the Democratic Party’s dream of a federal law allowing the police to enter homes at will after Marathon Bombings or merely to enforce new laws requiring gun owners to properly store their weapons so that their children don’t have access? Only random checks of the homes of registered gun owners by Big Brother could possibly work. But then what of the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down state sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas when an exigent search of a home happened upon a Collins-like act of courage between two other men that were also not then active players in the NBA?

Enough already Mike! The Obama Administration won’t come clean on its Benghazi lies, Islamist terrorism threat denials, the national debt crisis or the anemic economy.

So you mean that blaming the Ambassador and other American deaths in Benghazi on a video that Hillary says doesn’t make any difference at this point, Mirandizing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, changing the cost-of-living formula for Social Security beneficiaries and reminding us of J.P. Morgan’s record profits, isn’t “coming clean”?

Guess not, but who knows, maybe tomorrow we will learn that President Obama and the First Lady held a conference call with three offensive linemen on NFL rosters who are courageous partners in a bigamous gay marriage whose ex-wives aborted fetuses with the help of Planned Parenthood. God bless America…

…unless you desire Life, Liberty and pursuits of same -sex, economically prosperous (able to afford Le Sueur instead of just store-brand/generic peas), secure-in-the-homeland-and/or-foreign-embassy-or-consulate happiness.

Mike DeVine

Mike DeVine, presently with the Ruf Law Firm in Metro Atlanta, is the managing editor of HillbillyPolitics and PoliticalDaily; Atlanta Law and Politics columnist for; and regular blogger at Unified Patriots and His work at Redstate was featured in a PBS Special on conservative bloggers which led to a stint as the conservative op-ed voice of the Charlotte Observer and regular appearances in The New York Times, The Hill, Wall Street Journal, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and other major print and online publications. DeVine’s writing career was launched soon after his Summer of 2001 move to Atlanta and “conservative epiphany.” While the legal editor for The (Decatur, GA) Champion, he wrote the first post-9/11 column published in the United States suggesting that captured terrorists would not be entitled to POW rights. Previously, DeVine had been an active Democratic Party county chairman, convention delegate, and campaign manager in S.C. He matriculated at the University of South Carolina School of Law, Spartanburg Methodist College, and Wofford College, where he earned Phi Bet Kappa honors and taught Business Law.


  1. phoenixlaw says:

    Just one question Mike – What is your Constitutional basis for arguing that an American citizen should not be Mirandized?  In light of the fact that you always claim to be such a patriot, it would seem that you would strongly support upholding the Constitution.  Or does the Constitution only matter when it serves your purpose, and when it doesn’t, it should be disregarded?

    1. @phoenixlaw Gasp—-another instance where I agree with Phoenixlaw!  We have to stop meeting like this. 
      IMO, one could argue that Miranda needs to be updated or qualified in some way, but so long as we have it and it remains in its current form, it needs to be applicable to all citizens.

      1. phoenixlaw says:

        @WesternFreePress  @phoenixlaw Well WFP, I try to be rational and civil even when we don’t agree.

        1. @phoenixlaw And that is all too uncommon here on the Internet, where anonymity is taken as a license for people to say things they would never say to someone in person. Thanks!

    2. Mike DeVine says:

      @phoenixlaw Neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court precedent of Miranda v Arizona requires anyone arrested or captured to be read their rights to counsel and against self incrimination. Those rights exist whether read or not, and any confessions or other incriminating evidence obtained SOLELY due to any statements made in violation of those rights (or any other so-called non-Miranda, Constitutional rights) can be excluded from being introduced in a domestic criminal trial under the doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. That is Miranda’s SOLE purpose. Those rights apply to domestic matters, and not the law of war.

      1. phoenixlaw says:

        @Mike DeVine So, if I’m hearing you correctly, during a time of war, the Constitution is thrown out the window,  Is that what you are saying?  And if so, who decides if we are at war??  And who decides what is, and who performs, an act of war?  Kinda of like, ok, why wasn’t Sandy Hook an act of war?

        1. phoenixlaw says:

          @Mike DeVine Please show me the portion of the Constitution which provides for its suspension during a time of war.

      2. @Mike DeVine  @phoenixlaw “Neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court precedent of Miranda v Arizona requires anyone arrested or captured to be read their rights to counsel and against self incrimination.”
        Interesting. But then why do charges get thrown out if a defendant can prove he was never read his Miranda warning?

        1. GregoryConterio says:

          @WesternFreePress  @Mike DeVine  @phoenixlaw
           Mike is correct.  There is no requirement that anyone be “mirandized.”  The only effect of NOT being mirandized is that any evidence obtained prior to mirandization will likely be thrown-out at trial.So, it the government decided it is more important to gain possible intelligence that might prevent further attacks than to use any information so gained in pursuit of a conviction, they may well conclude to wait before reading the rights.  That is clearly the calculation made by the FBI and others before a judge swooped-in and the suspect clammed-up.

        2. @GregoryConterio  @Mike DeVine  @phoenixlaw Ahhhhh, interesting.

        3. phoenixlaw says:

          @GregoryConterio  @WesternFreePress  @Mike DeVine The opinion in Miranda v. Arizona, which requires the “Miranda” warning states:  “At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he MUST first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent.”   Notice it says “must” be informed – it doesn’t say “should be”.  Sounds pretty clear to me that the Boston suspect had a right to the Miranda warning. 
          The FBI claimed that the Public Safety Exception to the Miranda warning, as carved out in the 1985 case New York v. Quarles applied here, but their application of that exception in the present case was so far out of line that a Federal magistrate interrupted the FBI interrogation, which had been proceeding at that point for a full 16 hours, and advised him of his right to remain silent and appointed him a lawyer.  It has no been verified that Tsarnaev had repeatedly asked for a lawyer prior to the magistrates visit to his hospital room, and the FBI had simply ignored those requests.
          This person was not only denied his rights under Miranda, but even more seriously, was denied access to an attorney, despite repeated requests.  The FBI and the DOJ face the very real possibility that all information they had gathered in the 16 hour interrogation will never be allowed in court.

        4. GregoryConterio says:

          @WesternFreePress  @Mike DeVine  @phoenixlaw
           ..because all evidence or statements obtained prior to the defendant being Mirandized will likely be inadmissible at trial, and the prosecution thus has no case to make.The reason this is an issue in the Tsarnaev case is that a huge amount of forensic evidence against him already exists, which has nothing to do with whether he was Mirandized.  Things like video of him carrying the backpack, or testimony of other witnesses are unaffected by whether or not he was read his rights.  In fact, it the police catch you red-handed, and have more than enough evidence to convict you, they might not mirandize you at all if they have no intention or need to question you.

        5. @GregoryConterio  @Mike DeVine  @phoenixlaw Very useful clarifications, all.

        6. phoenixlaw says:

          @GregoryConterio  You seem to be OK with the fact that this American citizen’s right were blatantly violated.  In addition, it’s amazing to me that so few people in Washington or elsewhere care that his rights were brazenly violated.  As New York Times Editor Andrew Rosenthal explained:  “If you cheer when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s right to counsel is denied, then you’re enabling the institutionalization of that violation, and thus ensuring that you have no basis or ability to object when that right is denied to others whom you find more sympathetic – including yourself.”
          Thomas Paine, 1795  —  “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

        7. @phoenixlaw  @GregoryConterio If he asked for council and was denied a legitimate request, that might be a violation. However, if what these gents are saying is true re: Miranda, it does not appear that having it read to you is a civil right. Evidence obtained prior to its reading may be inadmissible, but the lack of reading itself does not, apparently, constitute a breach.

        8. phoenixlaw says:

          @WesternFreePress  @GregoryConterio The Supreme Court has clearly stated that Miranda MUST be given.  This coupled with the fact that the FBI and DOJ denied his repeated requests for an attorney, there is a very real danger that the entire case is thrown out.

        9. GregoryConterio says:

          @phoenixlaw  @WesternFreePress
           Phoenix, please name one right that has been “violated.”He has NOT been denied counsel, he has not even been TRIED yet.  Your screen name “phoenixlaw” implies you are somehow connected to the legal industry.  If that is so, then it is rather surprising to me that you do not have a better understanding of this concept.  The phrasing you are so hung-up on, that a suspect MUST be Mirandized is not a compulsion upon law officers, and in fact the more complete text you yourself quote contains the qualification “if he is to be interrogated.”  The only thing that happens if a suspect fails to be mirandized is that any statements he makes, or evidence connected to those statements will likely be disallowed at trial.  That is all.  The Feds questioning him felt gaining information that might prevent further attacks was more important that gaining further evidence for use at trial, and rightly so.

        10. phoenixlaw says:

          @GregoryConterio  @WesternFreePress But he was interrogated, for 16 hours with no Miranda, and, other than the Public Safety exception, a custodial interrogation MUST be preceded by Miranda.  I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that Miranda is something police don’t really have to do.  Also, by their own admission, they were questioning him about subjects far beyond the Public Safety exception.  The even more serious violation is the fact that despite repeated requests for an attorney, the FBI continued to ignore those requests, until forced to do so by the federal magistrate. The right to counsel attaches immediately upon the defendant’s request for counsel while held in custody. When the right to counsel attaches, any statement elicited from that person by the police without counsel is subject to suppression.  Again, I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that only when the defendant is being tried is he entitled to an attorney.  The right to an attorney attaches long before trial – as I have said, it attaches as soon as he requests one while in custody. 
          If you permit the government to trample on the rights of those you hate, then you’re permitting the government to trample on those rights in general, for everyone.

        11. Mike DeVine says:

          @phoenixlaw  @GregoryConterio  @WesternFreePress Miranda v Arizona and precedents since related thereto punish the government by disallowing the introduction into evidence at a criminal trial of any improperly obtained evidence whether obtained via an unreasonable search and seizure, violations of right to counsel, right to remain silent, etc. No one’s rights have been violated merely by not reading Miranda. Only if evidence is admitted into evidence AT TRIAL that was improperly obtained would Miranda come into play.

        12. Mike DeVine says:

          @GregoryConterio  @WesternFreePress  @phoenixlaw Precisely

        13. Mike DeVine says:

          @WesternFreePress  @phoenixlaw  @GregoryConterio One has a Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and a right to counsel, that if violated by obtaining evidence via duress can be excluded from the trial which may result in a not guilty verdict if other evidence not improperly obtained does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. One does not have a right to have one’s charges dropped merely by not having been read those rights.

        14. @Mike DeVine  @phoenixlaw  @GregoryConterio That all sounds fairly dispositive. Are you satisfied, phxlaw?

Gays, guns, other distractions from Obama economy, Boston and Benghazi