What is "American Police Force"?

I stumbled upon a news item yesterday dated September 24 from TV station KULR of Billings, Montana that was kind of odd in a couple of ways, just in the opening paragraphs:

American Police Force officials showed up in Mercedes SUV's that had "Hardin Police" stenciled on the vehicles. The twist, the city of Hardin doesn't have a police department.

Two Rivers Authority officials say having APF patrol the streets was never part of their agenda. "I have no idea. I really don't because that's not been a part of any of the discussions we've had with any of them," said Two Rivers Authority's Al Peterson.

My first thought was "American Police Force? WTF??". My second was that this must be part of an ongoing local story and I must be missing something. Surely the "American Police Force" could only exist in the fevered mind of a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

So I poked around the KULR web site and came up with a number of news items there regarding APF, the earliest of which appears to be this one from September 14th. APF seems to be a somewhat murky outfit:

The jail in Hardin has been empty for about two years, but on September 4th officials with the Two Rivers Authority, the economic development agency that paid for the facility, signed a contract with a private police firm called American Police Force to fill the jail.

OK, so APF is a private security firm, I assume in a fashion similar to Blackwater. The article goes on to note the murkiness of APF:

The company's website states the U.S. government is their biggest client, but an Associated Press search of two comprehensive federal government contractor databases turned up no record of American Police Force.

Several media agencies have identified inconsistencies with the company. For instance their website states they have "years of experience," but a company spokesman said the corporation was formed this February. They also list an address to a building in Washington D.C., but no one at that address has ever heard of them.

So what I'd found out so far was that APF had contracted with local authorities to operate an empty jail in Hardin, the thought it would be cool to declare themselves the non-existent Hardin Police Department (a later article reports that they took the faux Hardin PD seals off their vehicles two days later). Needless to say, I got interested.

The APF web site is here (incongruously, Ravel's "Bolero" plays after the page loads), and lists the various services offered, such as:

• Police Officer and Security Training
• International Airline Security
• Special Forces Training
• Fugitive Recovery
• Kidknapping (sic) & Ransom
• Weapon & Equipment Sales - INTL Only
• Cargo Ship and Cruise Line Security
• Convoy Security (Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan & more)
• Military Advisors

Impressive, and as I thought, similar to Blackwater. Back to KULR for more reading. A follow-up article dated September 28 reveals APF's circumspection:

Confusion and secrecy about American Police Force has grown during the last few weeks.

"APF has been here for 10 months but it has never been stealth," said APF spokesperson Becky Shay at a press conference on Saturday morning. The group announced its plans to fill the $27 million dollar detention facility and build a police training center next to the jail. While they gave details for the site, other questions went unanswered.

[ ... ]

During the press conference APF also refused to release any information on its funding or organization "The decision is the name of the parent company will not be released," said Shay.

When questioned about the decision to show up in Hardin last week in vehicles with "Hardin Police" templates, members were brief in their explanation. "They are to show are (sic) intentions are good," said APF leader Captain Michael Hilton. "Why not put an APF logo on it," said Shay. "You know we're getting there." All of the decals were removed from the vehicles two days later.

The article goes on to say that APF specifically states they won't house Gitmo detainees at the facility. Curiouser and curiouser, and time for some Googling. I came across this item from cryptogon.com. The guy there had already done what I was going to do: run a WHOIS look up on APF:

defenseproductsolutions.com is hosted on the same IP (97.74.186.121) as americanpolicegroup.com. Both sites feature the same logo. Click on the Catalog link on defenseproductsolutions.com and say ‘hello’ to Edward Angelino.

Other business names associated with him: Allied Defense Systems, Inc. (allieddefensesystems.com) and Defense Consulting Group, Inc. There are almost certainly many more. I only spent ten minutes on this.

I looked through a couple of the sites that use the same template and noticed this:

allieddefensesystems.com/aboutus.htm:

Founded in 1990, ADS and its veteran team have serviced a variety of contracts under extreme conditions in the Middle East. Our projects have ranged from base camp construction operations to supplying world-class military vehicles. In the midst of international tensions, ADS will perform.

defenseproductsolutions.com/aboutus.htm:

Founded in 2004, DPS and its veteran team have serviced a variety of contracts under extreme conditions in the Middle East. Our projects have ranged from base camp construction operations to supplying world-class military vehicles. In the midst of international tensions, DPS will perform.

HAHA.

Oddly, I don't get the same IP addresses looking up these three domain names, but both Allied Defense and Defense Products do have nearly identical web sites. I'm guessing they're the same entity doing business under different names depending on where they're operating, but it's not clear that they're parent organizations for APF.

It's only fair to note that it's common for security companies - real, no-shit security companies - to cloak much of their operational information, but this level of opacity is unusual.

More attempts at unraveling APF here.

There is, however, an American Private Police Force Org Inc. that was incorporated March 2, 2009, and is based in Anaheim too. In addition to being the corporation’s agent for service of process, a Mr. Michael Hilton is the self-designated “Captain” of the APF.

The APF claims it is the subsidiary of a parent company but won’t identify the parent company or where APF is getting its money. The company’s Washington, D.C. address is a virtual office. Its Santa Ana, California office appears to be in an office complex with a Spanish-speaking church, a dental lab, and insurance agency.

That site also turned up an odd similarity between APF's logo and the Serbian coat of arms:


I'm not sure what to make of their appropriation of Serbia's coat of arms for their logo, but I'm inclined to think that they just said "Oh, crap...we need a cool logo!" and started poking around for a suitable crest. Anyway, very strange, indeed.

Update: Un-frackin'-believable. "Michael Hilton" of APF has a lengthy record of convictions for fraud, theft, etc. and is apparently a Serbian immigrant with a number of aliases. The shit's gonna come down on Hilton and APF hard.

Polanski: Celebrities v. everyone else?

Earlier today on Twitter, I wondered aloud why the Roman Polanski thing seemed to be shaping up as a liberal v. conservative issue. Clearly, plying a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and drugs so you can forcibly rape and sodomize her should be something we can all agree is wrong, right?

It appears we are in agreement on that...at least for the most part. According to Christian Toto at Big Hollywood, it appears to be liberal celebrities who seem to harbor moral ambiguity about child rape. And I use the term "celebrity" here in the broadest sense of the term.

• Kim Masters: “Roman Polanski understands women” – starts with her exasperation over the Polanski witch hunt.
• Bernard-Henri Levy: Let’s start a petition in support of Polanski.
• John Farr: Leniency for Polanski.

But HuffPo readers aren’t buying it. And boy, are they angry.

Check out the comments left on each of these essays and you’ll see faithful HuffPo readers aghast that the site could be defending the indefensible.

Here are just a few comments:

“Nope, it’s not a “conspiracy.” Child rape is a crime and Polanski should serve his time- he should have served it long ago instead of trying to pay off his victim”

“I am an California attorney, a confirmed Democrat-liberal and admirer of Mr. Polanski’s talents and those of many who have niavely signed this petition … Mr. Polanski did what he did and no amount of spin or the passage of time can change that. He drugged and raped a child. What don’t you understand about that? Is it O.K. to do that to your daughters? … Shame on you, all of you. You should (and probably do) know better.
“Let’s see these artists sign their names to a petition to excuse the drugging of and forced sex with a 13 year old. Let’s put it bluntly.”

I say "broadest sense of the term" because I've no fucking clue who Masters, Levy and Farr are, but if they're writing for HuffPo - and defending Roman Polanski - I'm guessing they're a collection of failed journalists and/or B-list actors.

In any event, good on HuffPo's readers for having none of this bullshit.

Update: Do these depraved fuckers even know the details of Polanski's case? Or do they believe that art transcends morals and puts them beyond judgment? Once again, Allahpundit at Hot Air says it better than I can.

"Hear our cry, Obama!"

Just when you thought it couldn't get any creepier, Naked Emperor News via breitbart.tv offers up this little gem - health care reform advocates actually praying to Barack Obama, with refrains of "Hear our cry, Obama!" and "Deliver us, Obama!".

Listen closely for the reference to "the prophet, Martin Luther King, Jr".

Since when is it OK to be a child rapist?

These are facts that are not in dispute: Roman Polanski plied a 13-year-old girl with champagne and quaaludes, forcibly had sex with her, then sodomized her for good measure, and pleaded guilty.

But, hey, he's a genius of the arts, so it's OK. So sayeth the Hollywood illuminati. I can't say anything better about this than Allahpundit at Hot Air, in rare form on this topic:

Needless to say, this reminds me of the left’s umbrage at conservatives daring to bring up Chappaquiddick after Teddy died. Yeah, he left a woman to drown and then made jokes about it afterwards; he was for universal health care, though, wasn’t he? Same with Polanski: Dare we deny the man who made “Chinatown” an occasional drugging and raping of a child? Sure, a kid gets traumatized for life, but on the other side of the scale: “Rosemary’s Baby.” It’d be sweet if the left could come up with some sort of mathematical formula by which we could tell whether an artist or liberal politician has exceeded his quotient of moral indulgence. I’m assuming “Chinatown” wasn’t so awesome that Polanski would be excused shooting a kid in the head at point-blank range, so evidently it’s “worth” less than that but more than a child-rape. Let’s figure out just how much of a liberal hero you have to be to get away with certain crimes.

Come on, you neanderthals, give Polanski a break. Do it for the children.

Boxer, Kerry to introduce Senate version of cap and trade

What could go wrong?

The Boxer-Kerry bill will build in large part off H.R. 2454, legislation approved in June by the House following several marathon months of negotiations that involved lawmakers representing coastal and industry-heavy districts. Exactly what is the same in the two bills remains to be seen. As for differences, Senate Democratic aides say they expect the legislation to divert from the House bill's 17 percent emissions target for 2020 and go with an even more aggressive 20 percent limit. The bill also will stay silent on exactly how the Senate should divide up emission allowances.

The Democrats are determined not to let this steaming pile of crap die the ignominious death it deserves.

WaPo editors note hypocrisy of the left

A Washington Post editorial today notes what bloggers on the right have grumbled about since Barack Obama took office; that the left's most despised policies under George Bush are suddenly not so bad when continued by Obama.

Like President George W. Bush, President Obama now asserts that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force gives him the right to hold some terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial. At Guantanamo, this is expected to affect 50 or so prisoners who, the administration has determined, can be tried neither in federal court nor before a military commission but are too dangerous to release.

[ ... ]

If the administration's abdication is irresponsible, the reaction of the civil liberties community has been breathtakingly hypocritical. The American Civil Liberties Union has consistently opposed any indefinite detention regime and pushed for detainees to be charged in federal or military courts or released. So we wouldn't expect them to join us in criticizing Mr. Obama for failing to seek a new legal regime. But it is odd that the same policy which, when pursued by the Bush administration, constituted "thumbing its nose at the Constitution" and putting a "stain on America's name at home and abroad" now elicits nothing but a few measured tsk-tsks.

Kudos to the Post's editors for calling them out on this. This goes hand-in-hand with the "what if Bush did it?" complaint. For eight years, every misstep or perceived overreach on the part of the Bush administration was blared to us in BOLD FACE ITALICIZED CAPITAL LETTERS but Obama gets a pass.

"Miss me yet?"

A friend e-mailed me this pic, which got me thinking...how many George Bush detractors - whether they'd admit to it or not - do actually miss the Bush years, if not the man himself?

I'll bet it's more than we think.

Hypocrisy watch

Roger at XDA compiled a great collage of anti-Bush pictures in response to this bizarre assertion from MSNBC's Chris Matthews:

You can go to a rally and hold up a sign talking about the man in the White House being some kind of animal, that he’s a Hitler guy, the fact that somebody would know they can get away with carrying a sign like that without being shunned, pushed aside, even beaten up, tells me there’s a license out there. … You wouldn’t hold up a sign like that a few months ago.

As my blogging betters have already pointed out, one would think history began the day Barack Obama was inaugurated.

Swine Flu stalking minor celebrities

Marilyn Manson: A bit more feverish than usual

It looks like H1N1, more popularly known as Swine Flu, might become better known for pushing minor celebrities back into the news than for killing people. Besides Colombia President Alvaro Uribe, swine flu has now claimed among its victims Marilyn Manson, Rachel Maddow, Rupert Grint, and Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

I guess having failed to kill people in large enough numbers, Swine Flu needed to do something to grab some headlines. What an attention whore.

Obama's brilliant team at work

Here's what we get for electing the smartest man to ever grace an American presidential campaign:

American plans to introduce an entrance fee for Germans and other Europeans entering the US has been met by harsh criticism. At an EU meeting on Monday, Germany's Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble opposed the plans, saying the plan to charge visitors a fee didn't make sense.

[ ... ]

Washington intends to use the planned fees to finance advertising campaigns for tourism, and estimates from a travel industry lobbying group claim the campaign could create 40,000 jobs in the travel industry. Schäuble has criticized these plans. "Financing a campaign to promote tourism by charging tourists $10 may not be logical," Schäuble said.

Whoever said a Democrat-led government would be logical? Way to mend those fences abroad, sport.

E.T. go home!

Twtterer @betsy2go made this E.T./Nancy Pelosi montage that was too good not to put up. I'm sure this image is somehow racist, or at least sexist. Maybe it's just offensive to aliens being compared to Nancy Pelosi.

Shocker: Dems never DID support Afghan war

This was all over the righty blogs yesterday, but worth noting. The liberal blog Hullabaloo notes:

Escalation is a bad idea. The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides when they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat [sic] the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy.

Well, duh. As if we should ever expect serious foreign policy from the Dems. As Jim Geraghty over at NRO noted:

The average Democrat doesn't like fighting wars. They don't like using military force. They don't just dislike collateral damage and civilian casualties and flag-draped coffins; they cringe at the concept of combat with citizens of another country, even when the president has declared:

Al Qaeda and its allies — the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks — are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban — or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged — that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

That's not the last president; that's the current president, an entire six months ago.

I wanted to make some acerbic comment on the left's duplicity, but I can do no better than Ace:

You claimed to support a war in which American soldiers were fighting and dying, leaving friends and limbs on the battlefield, as a cynical political strategy?

You... um... voiced support of a real serious-as-death war to cadge votes out of a duped public?

Uh-oh: McChrystal may resign over Obama's "dithering"?

A pissing contest between General Stanley McChrystal and President Obama is about to become very public. McChrystal has had a report ready to go to the White House since late August in which he'll recommend a significant increase in troop levels in Afghanistan, but the Obama administration doesn't want to see the report. Not yet, anyway.

According to Bill Roggio at the Long War Journal, McChrystal is prepared to resign his post if the administration won't listen to him:

Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal's team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn't given sufficient resources (read "troops") to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan...

Roggio quotes a McClatchy article, which includes this bit from SecDef Robert Gates:

On Thursday, Gates danced around the question of when the administration would be ready to receive McChrystal's request, which was completed in late August. "We're working through the process by which we want that submitted," he said.

Er...what? Working through the process of submitting a report? This ain't that hard, guys. The report's done, all you have to do is ask for it. Unless, that is, you're fully aware of what's in the report and you know the clock will start ticking on making a decision on the recommendations and they're decisions you don't really want to make because you campaigned on the premise that Afghanistan was the "good" war that must be won at all costs and now public sentiment is shifting away from that.

Yeah, that's intentionally a run-on sentence. Get over it.