Justplainbill's Weblog

November 21, 2014

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 [nc]

Filed under: Business, Econonics, Elections, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Law Enforcement, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 2:28 pm

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act 1952
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

November 18, 2014

Illegals in Los Angeles County CA, from Snopes [c]

Filed under: Business, Econonics, Education, Elections, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Law Enforcement, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 9:13 pm

[Got this email with all sorts of statistics regarding illegals in LA County, claiming LA Times as the source. Actually knowing something re this area, and even though I dislike snopes, I checked with their postings, as if nothing else, they would have references. So, here’s the deal regarding those emailed stats.

Now, I don’t really care that the original email is off, what is disgusting is that the below is the truth. Illegals Aliens are a cancer on American Culture. The below stats prove it. Keep in mind, this is just ONE of dozens of counties in CA, NYS, MA, IL, PA, OR, WA, MO, IA, FL, and several other states.

An estimate of the actual cost to the US Taxpayer in dollars/annum, is over 600B. That is $600,000,000.00 or about the current defense department expenditure on Obama. Another way to look at it, is that 600 B would more than cover the cost of the interest on the national debt.

Think about it.]

Where Your Taxes Go

Claim: Listing provides statistics about the number and costs of illegal aliens in Los Angeles County.

MIXTURE

Examples: [Collected via e-mail, 2006]

WHERE YOUR TAXES GO – ILLEGAL ALIENS

Attributed to the LA Times, June 2002:

1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4. Over 2/3’s of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

9. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.

10. In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County).

(All 10 from the Los Angeles Times)

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare. See…

http://www.cis.org/

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.

The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.

29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

Origins: The various figures quoted above were not taken from a 2002 Los Angeles Times article. They appear to have been gleaned from a variety of sources and vary in accuracy as noted below:

Over 2/3’s of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
The California Vital Records Department of the Department of Health Services classified as “Hispanic” the race/ethnicity of 62.7% of all births occurring in Los Angeles county in 2001. The statistic quoted above therefore erroneously characterizes all parents of Hispanic heritage in Los Angeles County in 2001 as being “illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal.”

The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
In April 2005, Heather Mac Donald, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. On the issue of gang membership among illegal immigrants, she said:
No one knows for certain the percentage of illegals in gangs, thanks in large part to sanctuary laws themselves. But various estimates exist:

A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations. It commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.
Note, however, that this statement references a California Department of Justice study (not an FBI report), and that it describes only a single gang in Los Angeles County (the 18th Street Gang), the gang that likely has the highest membership rate of illegal aliens.

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
This figure also appears (unsourced) in Heather Mac Donald’s testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims:
In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the first half of 2004 (which totaled 1,200 to 1,500) targeted illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) were for illegal aliens.
Even if the statistic is accurate, however, it is subject to a variety of interpretations. For example, illegal aliens might be disproportionately represented by outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles because they are more likely to flee the jurisdiction before their cases are adjudicated than legal residents are (not necessarily because they commit a far greater share of the homicides in Los Angeles). This interpretation is supported by a University of California Davis summary of immigration issues that notes:
The Los Angeles Police Department has a 12-year old Foreign Prosecution Unit that pursues suspects who fled the US after committing crimes in Los Angeles and gives testimony when they are prosecuted aboard. The United States does not have extradition treaties with most Latin American countries but many countries, for example, Mexico, Nicaragua or El Salvador try suspects for murder and other violent crimes committed in the US.

The Foreign Prosecution Unit was founded in 1985, after a study found that nearly half of the LAPD’s outstanding arrest warrants involved Mexican nationals who were presumed to have fled the country. The FPU works with Interpol to find suspects who flee abroad and then prepares the evidence so that the person can be arrested and prosecuted. The FPU clears about one-third of its cases, compared to two-thirds of all homicide cases in Los Angeles.

The Mexican consulate in Los Angeles has a representative of the Mexican attorney general’s office to work with the FPU in prosecuting suspects in Mexico for crimes committed in Los Angeles.
75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
The Los Angeles Police Department’s “Most Wanted” list is viewable on-line, but since each entry generally includes only the ethnicity of a suspect (not his or her immigration status or nationality), and many of the entries refer to persons of unknown identity, it’s difficult to verify the claim that 75% of the people listed therein are illegal aliens.

Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
Again, this figure appears to correspond with Heather Mac Donald’s testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims:
The L.A. County Sheriff reported in 2000 that 23% of inmates in county jails were deportable, according to the New York Times.
Note, however, that the 23% figure cited includes all deportable aliens, not just Mexican nationals.

21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.
The number of Spanish-language radio stations in Los Angeles varies a bit from source to source (and according to how one defines “Los Angeles”), but according to Los Angeles Almanac, if both AM and FM stations are counted, and all programming formats (e.g., music, news, talk, religion, sports) are included, then it’s fair to say that there are about 20 “Spanish speaking” radio stations in Los Angeles.

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare
Although illegal aliens are not generally eligible to collect public welfare benefits, an illegal alien may receive benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamps programs on behalf of his or her U.S. citizen child. (Any child born in the United States is considered a U.S. citizen, regardless of the parents’ immigration status.) A 1997 General Accounting Office (GAO) report determined that in 1995 households headed by illegal aliens received a total of $700 million in AFDC benefits and $430 million in Food Stamps.

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.
As the Sacramento Bee recently reported, the “over 90%” figure for population growth in California is essentially accurate if the term “immigration” is defined to encompass both foreign immigrants and births to immigrant mothers:
When Department of Finance numbers are merged with Census Bureau numbers and birth and death data collected by the state Department of Health Services are added to the mix, showing that half of all births are to immigrant mothers, the inescapable conclusion is that foreign immigration and births to immigrant mothers together comprise all of the state’s net population growth. Or, to put it another way, without foreign immigration, California would have virtually zero population growth.
The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].
It is true that Rice University economist Donald Huddle has conducted studies and concluded that immigrants (both legal and illegal) in the U.S. receive billions of dollars more in social services from local, state and federal governments than they contribute in revenue. It’s also true that others have criticized his studies as flawed and arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion (i.e., that immigrants actually produce a net revenue surplus). For example, a University of California Davis Migration News article on “Illegal Immigration: Numbers, Benefits, and Costs in California” notes:
There is a great deal of disagreement over the costs and benefits of immigrants to the US and California. Studies in the early 1980s in Texas and New York concluded that the taxes paid by immigrants exceeded the cost of providing public services to them, but that the federal government got the surplus of taxes over expenditures, and local governments had deficits. Los Angeles did a study in 1992 that reinforced this conclusion.

Donald Huddle of Rice University set the benchmark for today’s debate with a study that concluded that the legal and illegal immigrants who arrived since 1970 cost the US $42.5 billion in 1992, and $18.1 billion in California. According to Huddle, 7.2 million immigrants arrived legally and illegally in California since 1970, and the state incurred costs of $23 billion to provide them with services — half of the costs were for education and health care, and one-sixth were due to the costs of providing services to US residents displaced by these immigrants.

As with all such studies, Huddle made assumptions about how many illegal aliens there are, their usage of welfare and other public services, the taxes they paid, and their indirect economic impacts. Jeff Passel of the Urban Institute reviewed and revised Huddle’s US estimates, and his calculations turned the $42 billion net cost into a $29 billion net benefit.

Most of the $70 billion difference between these studies arises from their estimates of the taxes paid by immigrants — Huddle assumes that post-1970 immigrants paid $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government, and Passel assumes they paid $70 billion. And the major reason for the difference in tax estimates is that Huddle did not include the 15 percent of each worker’s earnings that are paid in Social Security taxes, while Passel did — this accounts for over one-third of the $70 billion difference.

Huddle excluded Social Security taxes because, in his view, contributions today need to be offset by the promise of benefit payments to immigrants when they retire. Passel included them because the federal government treats Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis.
An article published by the Urban Institute drew similar conclusions:
According to the most controversial study of those discussed here, the benefits and costs of immigration to the United States in 1992 add up to a total net cost to all levels of government of $42.5 billion. This study, by Donald Huddle, was sponsored by the Carrying Capacity Network, a nonprofit group that advocates major reductions in immigration to the United States. “The Costs of Immigration” (Huddle 1993) uses estimation procedures that include a variety of errors. When these errors are corrected, the post-1970 immigrants in Huddle’s study actually show a surplus of revenues over social service costs of at least $25 billion.
Last updated: 19 September 2014

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp#2c13ljx77jEfDAwf.99

November 17, 2014

Marine Activity 9/11, Flt 77 hit Pentagon. from John, former USArmy

Filed under: Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Marine Corps. Patriots — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:18 pm

AFTER FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON ON 9/11, THE FOLLOWING HAPPENED

AFTER FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON ON 9/11, THE FOLLOWING HAPPENED

A chaplain, who happened to be assigned to the Pentagon, told of an incident that happened right after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

A daycare facility inside the Pentagon had many children, including infants who were in heavy cribs. The daycare supervisor, looking at all the children they needed to evacuate, was in a panic over what they could do.

There were many children, mostly toddlers, as well as the infants that would need to be taken out with the cribs. There was no time to try to bundle them into carriers and strollers.

Just then a young Marine came running into the center and asked what they needed. After hearing what the center director was trying to do, he ran back out into the hallway and disappeared. The director thought, “Well, here we are, on our own.”

About 2 minutes later, that Marine returned with 40 other Marines in tow. Each of them grabbed a crib with a child, and the rest started gathering up toddlers.

The director and her staff then helped them take all the children out of the center and down toward the park nears the Potomac ..

Once they got about 3/4 of a mile outside the building, the Marines stopped in the park, and then did a fabulous thing – they formed a circle with the cribs, which were quite sturdy and heavy, like the covered wagons in the Old West.

Inside this circle of cribs, they put the toddlers, to keep them from wandering off. Outside this circle were the 40 Marines, forming a perimeter around the children and waiting for instructions. There they remained until the parents could be notified and come get their children.

The chaplain then said, “I don’t think any of us saw nor heard of this on any of the news stories of the day. It was an incredible story of our men there.” There wasn’t a dry eye in the room.

The thought of those Marines and what they did and how fast they reacted; could we expect any less from them? It was one of the most touching stories from the Pentagon.

It’s the Military, not the politicians that ensure our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It’s the Military who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag.

If you care to offer the smallest token of recognition and appreciation for the military, please pass this on and pray for our men and women, who have served and are currently serving our country, and pray for those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.

“GOD BLESS AMERICA”

Mitchell Paige, Col. USMC

Filed under: Education, Historical context, Media Check, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Marine Corps. Patriots — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:09 pm

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Nov 15 at 11:45 AM

A truly remarkable combat action you no doubt know about, but the details are worth reviewing again—Semper Fi

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

From: Ron Martin
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:54 AM
To: Joseph R. John
Subject: Mitchell Paige – Marine

Thought this needed sharing !

Semper Fi !

GBA,

Ron

In case some have forgotten or never knew the story of Mitchell Paige…

History at Guadalcanal ……and one of our nation’s finest!

DOWN TO ONE MARINE

On November 15, 2003, an 85-year-old retired Marine Corps colonel died of congestive heart failure at his home in La Quinta, California, southeast of Palm Springs .

He was a combat veteran of World War II. Reason enough to honor him. But this Marine was a little different. This Marine was Mitchell Paige.

It’s hard today to envision — or, for the dwindling few, to remember — what the world looked like on 26 October 1942.

The U.S. Navy was not the most powerful fighting force in the Pacific. Not by a long shot. So the Navy basically dumped a few thousand Marines on the beach at Guadalcanal.

As Platoon Sgt. Mitchell Paige and his 33 riflemen set about carefully emplacing their four water-cooled .30-caliber Browning machine guns, manning their section of the thin khaki line which was expected to defend Henderson Field against the assault of the night of 25 October 1942, it’s unlikely anyone thought they were about to provide the definitive answer to that most desperate of questions: How many able-bodied U.S. Marines does it take to hold a hill against 2,000 desperate and motivated Japanese attackers?

Nor did the commanders of the Japanese Army, who had swept everything before them for decades, expect their advance to be halted on some jungle ridge manned by one thin line of Marines in October of 1942.

But by the time the night was over, The Japanese 29th Infantry Regiment has lost 553 killed or missing and 479 wounded among its 2,554 men, historian David Lippman reports. The Japanese 16th Regiment’s losses are uncounted, but the [US] 164th’s burial parties handled 975 Japanese bodies. … The American estimate of 2,200 Japanese dead is probably too low.

Among the 90 American dead and seriously wounded that night were all the men in Mitchell Paige’s platoon; every one. As the night of endless attacks wore on, Paige moved up and down his line, pulling his dead and wounded comrades back into their foxholes and firing a few bursts from each of the four Brownings in turn, convincing the Japanese forces down the hill that the positions were still manned.

The citation for Paige’s Medal of Honor Citation defines the event: “When the enemy broke through the line directly in front of his position, P/Sgt. Paige, commanding a machinegun section with fearless determination, continued to direct the fire of his gunners until all his men were either killed or wounded. Alone, against the deadly hail of Japanese shells, he fought with his gun and when it was destroyed, took over another, moving from gun to gun, never ceasing his withering fire.”

In the end, Sgt. Paige picked up the last of the 40-pound, belt-fed Brownings (the same design which John M. Browning fired for a continuous 25 minutes until it ran out of ammunition, glowing cherry red, at its first U.S. Army demonstration) and did something for which the weapon was never designed. Sgt. Paige walked down the hill toward the place where he could hear the last Japanese survivors rallying to move around his flank, the belt-fed gun cradled under his arm, firing as he went.

The weapon did not fail.

At dawn, battalion executive officer Major Odell M. Conoley was first to discover the answer to our question: How many able-bodied Marines does it take to hold a hill against two regiments of motivated, combat-hardened Japanese infantrymen who have never known defeat?

On a hill where the bodies were piled like cordwood, Mitchell Paige alone sat upright behind his .30-caliber Browning, waiting to see what the dawn would bring.

One hill: one Marine.

But “In the early morning light, the enemy could be seen a few yards off, and vapor from the barrels of their machine guns was clearly visible,” reports historian Lippman. “It was decided to try to rush the position.”

For the task, Major Conoley gathered together “three enlisted communication personnel, several riflemen, a few company runners who were at the point, together with a cook and a few messmen who had brought food to the position the evening before.”

Joined by Paige, this ad hoc force of 17 Marines counterattacked at 5:40 a.m., discovering that this extremely short range allowed the optimum use of grenades. They cleared the ridge.

And that’s where the previously unstoppable wave of Japanese conquests finally broke and began to recede. On an unnamed jungle ridge on an insignificant island no one had ever heard of, called Guadalcanal .

But who remembers, today, how close-run a thing it was, the ridge held by a single Marine, in the autumn of 1942?

Some time after, when the Hasbro Toy Company telephoned asking permission to put the retired Colonel’s face on some kid’s doll, Mitchell Paige thought they must be joking.

But they weren’t. Today, that’s his face on the little Marine they call “G.I. Joe.”

November 13, 2014

Jane’s 360 [nc ]Note the Saudi defense budget

Filed under: Business, Global Intel, Historical context, Islam, Military, Political Commentary — Tags: , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:36 pm

Raytheon begins DARPA CAS programme tests, plans live fire
IHS Jane’s 360
To
me
Today at 4:56 AM
If you are having trouble reading this email, read the online version.

Latest updates from IHS Jane’s 360 Thursday 13th November, 2014

Jane’s 360
HOME DEFENCE SECURITY INDUSTRY

Raytheon begins DARPA CAS programme tests, plans live fire

Raytheon has begun flight tests of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA’s) Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS) programme, the company announced on 5 November. Raytheon plans to…

READ FULL ARTICLE…

MORE IHS Jane’s 360 NEWS

A Airshow China 2014: land systems front and centre at Zhuhai – Read more

A China develops laser to take out small UAVs – Read more

A Iraqi F-16s to remain in the US until security situation improves – Read more

A Israel adopts Flight Guard missile protection system for national airliners- Read more

A IJT problems force Indian Air Force to modify fast jet training programme – Read more

A Indian MoD opts for Seahawk in navy’s MRH tender – Read more

A Syrian military reportedly reverses Islamic State gains – Read more

A Russia exercises its strategic nuclear ‘triad’- Read more

A Iran claims to have flown reverse-engineered US stealth UAV – Read more

A Details emerge on new Chinese survey ships – Read more

FEATURED VIDEO

IndoDefence 2014: Christopher Foss speaks to Jon Grevatt about the Indonesian Defence Market

WATCH VIDEO…

November 11, 2014

Standardized Testing IS the norm!

Filed under: Education, Elections, Historical context, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 6:02 pm

Standardized Testing
Posted: 11 November 2014

On 4 November 2014, in Missouri, we had several constitutional amendments to pass or refute. Amendment 3 dealt with a state-wide educational mandate that would allow the state government to apply standards, via standardized testing, across the state in order to provide educational uniformity among students pre-K – 12. It also provided for requiring accountability for learning to the teachers, and restricted tenure as well as requiring uniform standards to teacher accreditation. Further, it allowed for the termination of incompetent teachers.

It failed to pass by close to ~80% against and ~20% for.

You should review two earlier posts at this time. One starts with an article posted by Yahoo News, which demonstrates the low level of journalism as well as how poor and substandard the educational system is, my comments at the end are important to both of these posts, and the other is the earlier posted White Paper to the Missouri Senate on Education and Entrepreneurship.

Standardized testing as toxic to education is one of the greatest politico-union hoaxes ever perpetrated on a long-suffering taxpayer. Pay close attention to the FACTS.

The first thing that y’all need to know is that standardized testing was and is an irrefutable fact of the lecture-response form of teaching. Lecture-response is universal throughout the pre-K – 12 American Educational System. Read the White Paper for more. The second thing that you need to know is that there are two forms of textbooks for pre-K – 12. The next time that you see your child, look closely at her textbook.

Open it, look at the publisher’s page, and it probably has a Chicago publisher listed as the publishing company. That is correct, wherever you are in the U.S.A., the odds are that the publisher of your kids’ textbook is the same as everywhere else in the U.S.A., and the publisher is in Chicago. Yupper, everyone HAS THE SAME TEXT BOOK! Now, look at the content.

The book is broken down into modules, sections, and chapters that coincide with the school year. So much for “lesson plans”, when the textbook is designed with internal lesson plans. Oh? Look carefully at the questions at the end of each piece.

Keep in mind, now, that the entire country uses THE SAME TEXTBOOK.

Now, the next time that you attend a P.T.A. meeting, ask to look at THE TEACHER’S textbook. Same publisher and ALMOST the same contents. Look closely at the parts of the book immediately AFTER the questions in your kids’ book.

Do not be shocked. In the teacher’s copy, not only are all of those questions answered, but there are whole paragraphs with what the teacher should be concentrating on, with what questions to ask to guide the students to the correct answer, AND there are suggested TEST QUESTIONS! Where do you think teachers get their test questions?

Yupper, ALL TEACHERS GET THEIR TESTS FROM THE QUESTIONS IN THE SAME TEACHERS’ EDITION OF THE SAME TEXTBOOK! THERE IS ONLY STANDARDIZED TESTING!

So why the argument against standardized testing when no matter where you are, the teachers MUST “teach to the (same) test”?

    The state will only use the same questions to make up the test in the first place; so no matter what, they MUST ‘teach to the test’! Could it be that it takes the granting of the actual grade AWAY from the teacher? Does it mean no more tokens, no more pets, and no more free passes to “minorities”? Does it mean that there will be a true LEVEL playing field, that FAVORITISM will now be ELIMINATED?

    AND, does it mean that incompetent teachers will be exposed for what they are and now vulnerable to replacement with competent teachers?

    Now, a little history lesson: until The Johnson Administration and its “Great Society”, New York City had one of the best public school systems in the U.S.A. The New York Public School System REQUIRED standardized testing at several grades until it was, magically by judicial decree, made racist, and therefore discriminatory. Until The Johnson Administration, the teachers were NOT unionized, tenure was limited, and a teacher did NOT need a Master’s Degree, to teach or to get tenure. Teachers and students did not fear for their lives in any of the schools in New York City in 1960. Parents were involved, teachers were involved, and except for a very few, students were involved.

    During The Clinton Administration, Hilly-Billy wanted Congress to forgive student debt and allow grants for university students taking teaching degrees. What they found out, once the people got involved, was that for every teaching position, there were 2 ½ accredited and licensed teachers!

    Why so many people with teaching licenses, compared to so few jobs?

    Class size in the 1950’s, when kids learned to read, write, and do arithmetic, was between 25 and 35. Now the teachers complain about a class size of 15 and our dropout rate is higher now than it was in 1960.

    Teachers were not required to have an M.Ed. within 10 years of getting their license, or be fired. Why, when if you look at the teachers’ textbook in grades pre-K – 8, is not an Associates’ Degree adequate? Why shouldn’t there be standardized testing and teacher accountability? Keeping in mind, of course, that STANDARDIZED TESTING is already in place and will remain in place for as long as the lecture & response teaching methodology exists.

    Who actually benefits from the current situation? Student? Parent? Teacher?

From Vol. 68 “Law Enforcement Magazine”, [nc]

Filed under: Elections, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Law Enforcement, Media Check, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:38 pm

Here is reality, clearly stated!
Sheriff Diehl would like to share an article with everyone: Picture the following hypothetical scenario: A chief at a press conference states, “Ladies and gentlemen I have gathered you here today, because police use of force cases are routinely mishandled by journalists and community leaders. It is my belief that journalists and community leaders may do a better job in this area if they have at least a basic understanding of what a justified use of force looks like.” There are three things the public needs to know about contacts with police; 1. Be courteous 2. Be cooperative 3. Be compliant Criminality, Not Color = It is important for you to convey to the public that police officers pursue criminality, not color. Officers must have a reason to make contact with an individual. They must be able to explain later in court that they had either a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe the individual had committed or was about to commit an offense. The fact is that more than 95 percent of police contacts are handled without rising above the level of dialog. This is because most people are cooperative and compliant. This is the way it should be, because it is unlawful to resist and or obstruct an officer, while in the performance of his/her duty. If a person disagrees with a stop or an arrest, the place to argue the case vigorously is in a court of law, not on the street. Force Options = When an officer meets resistance, officers are trained to use a level of force justified by the specific threat, or resistance they are presented with. For example, if a person pulls away from an officer making an arrest and snaps, “Don’t you touch me,” the officer can choose to apply a compliance hold to that person. These holds are designed to convince the person to comply. When a suspect is actively resisting, the officer can also choose to disengage and deploy a TASER or utilize pepper spray to overcome that resistance. It might surprise some people to discover that when a suspect strikes an officer, or even acts as if he or she is about to strike an officer, that officer can legally deliver impacts with what we call personal body weapons. Officers can punch, kick, or strike with elbows and/or knees to defend themselves and/or make an arrest. Officers can also choose to deliver baton impacts to targeted areas on the body. Officers can even strike a suspect more than once if once does not stop the suspect’s threat. If a suspect tries to hit an officer, don’t be surprised when that officer hits back. Use of Deadly Force = I’ve never heard an officer say at the beginning of a shift, “I hope I get to shoot someone today.” While the vast majority of officers never fire their weapons in the line of duty, some have to. When an officer is faced with the threat of death or great bodily injury — or someone they are sworn to protect is faced with that same imminent threat — an officer is justified in using deadly force. There are three generally held misconceptions about deadly force that continually arise and need to be addressed: 1. An officer can shoot an unarmed man under certain conditions. An officer may have to use deadly force on an unarmed man who is larger, stronger, and/or attempting to disarm the officer, for example. In the case of a suspect, who is battering an officer to the point that he or she may suffer death or great bodily harm, the use of deadly force is defensible. Police officers do not have to sustain a severe beating in the line of duty. Other factors that could justify an officer’s choice to utilize deadly force are the extent of that officer’s injury, exhaustion, or the number of assaultive adversaries the officer is confronted with. 2. An officer can, in certain conditions, shoot someone in the back. You see if a suspect is fleeing and their escape presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the community at large, the use of deadly force can be justified. On some occasions a round might enter through the back, because of the dynamics of the circumstance. 3. Officers are not — and never will be — trained to shoot to wound or shoot weapons out of subjects’ hands. These are not realistic options. Handguns are not accurate enough to deliberately attempt such things when lives are on the line. The Bottom Line = From 2003 to 2012, 535 officers were killed in the line of duty in this country. Another 580,000 were injured in the line of duty. I’m afraid that policing — which is already a dangerous profession — is becoming even more so, because of anti-police rhetoric and inaccurate reporting in use of force cases. If every person contacted by officers were to remain courteous, cooperative, and compliant, there would never be a need to employ force. The reality is, however, that although most people will cooperate, some people will resist arrest. It is not easy for a lone police officer to get a resistive suspect into handcuffs. If it looks rough, that’s because it is rough. Police work is a contact sport, but for cops there is no second place. If someone in the public sees a cop struggling with a suspect and decides not to give him/her a hand, they should at least give them the benefit of the doubt. Cops are not asking for citizens to get into the arena with them — they would just like the audience to stop cheering for the other team. The only way to get these three extremely simple ideas out to our communities is for you to take this information and share it, with both your fellow officers and with your community members. The above article was originally released in Volume 68 of the Law Enforcement Magazine.
Cass County Sheriffs Office

Sheriff Diehl would like to share an article with everyone:

Picture the following hypothetical scenario: A chief at a press conference states, “Ladies and gentlemen I have gathered you here today, because police use of force cases are routinely mishandled by journalists and community leaders. It is my belief that journalists and community leaders may do a better job in this area if they have at least a basic understanding of what a justified use of force looks like.”

There are three things the public needs to know about contacts with police;

1. Be courteous
2. Be cooperative
3. Be compliant

Criminality, Not Color = It is important for you to convey to the public that police officers pursue criminality, not color. Officers must have a reason to make contact with an individual. They must be able to explain later in court that they had either a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe the individual had committed or was about to commit an offense.

The fact is that more than 95 percent of police contacts are handled without rising above the level of dialog. This is because most people are cooperative and compliant. This is the way it should be, because it is unlawful to resist and or obstruct an officer, while in the performance of his/her duty.

If a person disagrees with a stop or an arrest, the place to argue the case vigorously is in a court of law, not on the street.

Force Options = When an officer meets resistance, officers are trained to use a level of force justified by the specific threat, or resistance they are presented with. For example, if a person pulls away from an officer making an arrest and snaps, “Don’t you touch me,” the officer can choose to apply a compliance hold to that person.

These holds are designed to convince the person to comply.

When a suspect is actively resisting, the officer can also choose to disengage and deploy a TASER or utilize pepper spray to overcome that resistance.

It might surprise some people to discover that when a suspect strikes an officer, or even acts as if he or she is about to strike an officer, that officer can legally deliver impacts with what we call personal body weapons.

Officers can punch, kick, or strike with elbows and/or knees to defend themselves and/or make an arrest.

Officers can also choose to deliver baton impacts to targeted areas on the body. Officers can even strike a suspect more than once if once does not stop the suspect’s threat. If a suspect tries to hit an officer, don’t be surprised when that officer hits back.

Use of Deadly Force = I’ve never heard an officer say at the beginning of a shift, “I hope I get to shoot someone today.”

While the vast majority of officers never fire their weapons in the line of duty, some have to. When an officer is faced with the threat of death or great bodily injury — or someone they are sworn to protect is faced with that same imminent threat — an officer is justified in using deadly force.

There are three generally held misconceptions about deadly force that continually arise and need to be addressed:

1. An officer can shoot an unarmed man under certain conditions.
An officer may have to use deadly force on an unarmed man who is larger, stronger, and/or attempting to disarm the officer, for example. In the case of a suspect, who is battering an officer to the point that he or she may suffer death or great bodily harm, the use of deadly force is defensible. Police officers do not have to sustain a severe beating in the line of duty.

Other factors that could justify an officer’s choice to utilize deadly force are the extent of that officer’s injury, exhaustion, or the number of assaultive adversaries the officer is confronted with.

2. An officer can, in certain conditions, shoot someone in the back.
You see if a suspect is fleeing and their escape presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the community at large, the use of deadly force can be justified. On some occasions a round might enter through the back, because of the dynamics of the circumstance.

3. Officers are not — and never will be — trained to shoot to wound or shoot weapons out of subjects’ hands.

These are not realistic options. Handguns are not accurate enough to deliberately attempt such things when lives are on the line.

The Bottom Line = From 2003 to 2012, 535 officers were killed in the line of duty in this country. Another 580,000 were injured in the line of duty.

I’m afraid that policing — which is already a dangerous profession — is becoming even more so, because of anti-police rhetoric and inaccurate reporting in use of force cases.

If every person contacted by officers were to remain courteous, cooperative, and compliant, there would never be a need to employ force. The reality is, however, that although most people will cooperate, some people will resist arrest.

It is not easy for a lone police officer to get a resistive suspect into handcuffs. If it looks rough, that’s because it is rough.

Police work is a contact sport, but for cops there is no second place. If someone in the public sees a cop struggling with a suspect and decides not to give him/her a hand, they should at least give them the benefit of the doubt.

Cops are not asking for citizens to get into the arena with them — they would just like the audience to stop cheering for the other team.

The only way to get these three extremely simple ideas out to our communities is for you to take this information and share it, with both your fellow officers and with your community members.

The above article was originally released in Volume 68 of the Law Enforcement Magazine.

November 6, 2014

The Catholic Church and other Charitable Organizations [c]

Filed under: Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Islam, Media Check, Political Commentary, Politicians, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 7:29 pm

[It’s not only The Catholic Church, it is also B’Nai B’Rith, and the Protestant Christian churches and charities. Before Obamacare, more than 40% of all hospital beds in the USA, were ‘charitable’ hospital beds, meaning, as I posted in the post on the healthcare hoax, provided by non-government charities, mostly religious. Go review the other post. Until Obamacare, every human being within the geographical confines of the United States of America, had free access to healthcare simply by showing up at one of these hospitals. Charitable institutions provide the bulk of services for those truly in need. Government through extortion covers the rest. Keep in mind that many of the newly elected US Senators and Representatives got into office pledging to repeal Obamacare. Watch what goes on, and consider the following, and keep in mind that the founders were opposed to these socialist tendencies. All that it takes to understand what limitations were placed on the federal government, is to read two books: The Federalist Papers, and The Anti-Federalist Papers, publishing/ purchasing info is on the book list posted herein.]

The Catholic Church

Good Morning Folks, Here is an interesting piece that I received from a friend. Please read and figure out the consequences.

I AM NOT A CATHOLIC, BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE READ BY ALL AMERICANS ASAP!

This for all denominations, not just Catholics, Protestants & Jewish people

Catholic Church

Charity Hospital run by the Sisters of Charity in New Orleans, along with the Upjohn Company, developed the plasma system in the 1930’s that savd so many lives in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and in the Middle East now.

During the Civil War most of the nurses were nuns.

Even if you are not Catholic, this is eye opening:

When the Catholic Church was founded, there were no hospitals.

Today, one out of five people in this country receive their medical care at a Catholic hospital

When the Catholic Church was founded, there were no schools.

Today, the Catholic Church teaches 3 million students a day, in its more than 250 Catholic colleges and universities, in its more than 1200 Catholic high schools and its more than 5000 Catholic grade schools.

Every day, the Catholic Church feeds, clothes, shelters and educates more people than any other organization in the world.

The new Obama Health Mandate could end all this, and the tax payers would have to make up the loss.

Also, all Catholic adoption services will come to an end…a human disaster.

There are more than 77 million Catholics in this country.

It takes an estimated 50 million Catholic votes to elect a president.

I am asking all of you to go to the polls in 2014, and be united in replacing all Senators and Reps with someone who will respect the Catholic Church, all Christians, and all religions with perhaps, the exception of Islam

Mr. President, you said, “The USA is not a Christian Nation”.

You are wrong!!!

We are a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian values, allowing all religions in America to worship and practice freely….

Something that Islam will never do.

Oh, by the way, on MUSLIM HERITAGE in America….

Have you ever been to a Muslim hospital, heard a Muslim orchestra, seen a Muslim band march in a parade, know of a Muslim charity, ever seen Muslims shaking hands with a Muslim Girl Scout, or ever seen a Muslim Candy Striper volunteering in a hospital?

Have you ever seen a Muslim do much of anything that contributes positively to the American way of life?

PLEASE DON’T KEEP THIS—PLEASE SEND IT OUT TO YOUR LIST.

Let’s circulate this to as many as possible. And remember this at the elections coming up in 2014 and 2016.

November 3, 2014

Massive Voter Fraud, Capt John USN [nc]

Filed under: Econonics, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Law Enforcement, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 8:41 pm

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 4:03 AM

In the 2008 Presidential election, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) had 1200 neighborhood chapters with 500,000 members in 100 major cities across the nation; ACORN was funded by Congress to register voters. ACORN employed massive Voter Fraud to get Obama elected. In 2009, in the wake of the production of video tapes portraying members of ACORN engaged in the registration of illegal aliens, a nationwide controversy erupted. ACORN was found to be falsifying then filing voter registration forms in Missouri, Ohio, Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Texas, Arizona, Florida, California, Wisconsin, Washington, New York, and Illinois, resulting in felony convictions in Federal Court in those states for Voter Fraud. As a result, millions of illegal votes were cast by illegal voters, and the previous funding for ACORN to register voters was terminated by Congress. ACORN was disbanded following multiple convictions for felony Voter Fraud in Federal courts in multiple states. The Obama administration morphed the 1200 ACORN chapters into many newly named organizations in 50 states, and those newly named organization employed the same ACORN operatives who are being well funded by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, as they continued perpetrating massive Voter Fraud in the 2012 Presidential election.

It was reported in the below listed article, that in the 2012 Presidential election, that 6.4% of the 124,026,000 votes cast by voters, or 7,937,664 vote cast, were cast by illegal aliens. For 6 years Holder, following Obama’s instructions, has been aggressively filing law suits against any state that passes a voter photo ID law to prevent them from opposing the massive Voter Fraud again in 2012, like they did in 2008 and the number of illegal aliens voters grew in to over 7 million voters in 2012. States have been passing voter ID laws requiring that voters present a photo voter ID, in order to vote at the polls for comparison to the list of registered voters.

Even when states offered to pay for the issuance of those voter photo IDs, Holder still filed suits against the states to oppose the requirement for a photo voter ID, by saying those ;laws were designed to suppress minorities from voting. The long term goal of Obama and his leftists and Marxist supporters appointees in the bloated bureaucracy is to CHANGE the Republic into a one party Socialist State. Obama’s leftist supporters are continuing the employment of Voter Fraud to register more illegal aliens than the 7.937,644 illegal aliens that voted in 2012.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL-Senate) addressed the US Senate in a 30-minute floor speech and alerted the nation to the fact that after the November 4th election, Obama is preparing, once again, to unilaterally circumvent Federal Immigration Laws by issuing an Executive Order in order to violate Federal Immigration Law and the US Constitution, without the consent of Congress. Obama had previously violated Federal Immigration Laws, without the consent of Congress, by issuing an Executive Oder to prevent ICE from deporting nearly 1 million illegal aliens, termed Dreamers, who are now protected from deportation by the Obama administration’s ill-conceived Deferred Action-Childhood Arrival Program (DACA).

Obama gave temporary lawful status to those illegal aliens in the DACA program, up to age 31, and provided them with identity documents, expediting their rapid pathway to citizenship, without so much as a face-to-face interview with ICE or Immigration officials. The Obama administration has made it very easy for another 1 million Illegal aliens to obtain drivers licenses and register to vote, when those 1 million Dreamers are added to the 7,937,6644 illegal aliens who violated Federal Law by voting in 2012, there will be nearly 9 million Illegal aliens violating Federal Law and voting on November 4th. The Obama administration knows the that Immigration Service does not have the resources to conduct field investigations of the 1 million DACA Illegal aliens, in order to check their applications, so the Immigration Service could uncover fraud, determine if they have criminal records, or determine if they might be listed in the CIA terrorist data base. Although Congressional leaders have the power of the purse, they have done absolutely nothing to cancel the funding required to expedite the pathway to citizenship for the DACA program.

After the November election, according to Senator Sessions, Obama is planning to issue another Executive Order, that will provide legal status and work authorization cards to an additional 5 to 6 million illegal aliens in the United States. Obama plans to issue those work permits to 6 million illegal aliens at a time when 44 million American citizens are unemployed & on food stamps, all American citizens would be required to compete for jobs with the 6 million Illegal aliens Obama plans to issue work permits to. When those 6 million illegal aliens, are added to the 1 million DACA illegal aliens previously provided with legal status, and the 7,937,664 illegal aliens who illegally voted in 2012. Obama will have been behind and responsible for helping nearly 15 million illegal aliens to register to vote for President in 2016.

Current examples of the massive Voter Fraud:

Maryland–Massive voter fraud in Maryland has been uncovered where illegal aliens who say they are not citizens on jury duty survey forms are found to have registered to vote by the thousands http://conservativebyte.com/2014/10/massive-non-citizen-voting-uncovered-maryland/ Early voting just started in Maryland, but there are already accusations that some voting machines are changing Republican votes to Democrat Now Republicans are calling for an investigation by the State Board of Elections.

Illinois—Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start last Monday, as votes being cast for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats. Republican state Representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote at the Schaumburg Public Library. “I tried to vote for myself and instead it cast a vote for my opponent.” Moynihan said Cook County Board of Elections Deputy Communications Director, Jim Scalzitti, told Illinois Watchdog, the machine was taken out of service to be tested

North Carolina—The North Carolina Board of Elections has found 1,425 registered voters who likely are illegal aliens. The audit sample 10,000 registered voters in with data provided by the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles and the US Department of Homeland Security.

New York—A single Bronx voter listed in official records as being 164 years old led to the Board of Elections officials to review their files—–where they turned up another 849 New Yorkers who were supposedly alive when Abraham Lincoln was President.

Examples of Voter Fraud in Connecticut, Kentucky, Georgia, Virginia, Minnesota, Alabama, Texas, Massachusetts, Tennessee, California, Idaho, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida, South Dakota, Nevada, Oregon, Iowa, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Michigan, Hawaii, Maryland, Rhode Island, etc. can be reviewed by clicking on the link https://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp

To prevent the massive scale Voter Fraud underway being perpetrated by the Obama administration, every state should pass laws to require voters to show a photo ID in order to cast a vote at the polls. The Republicans in Congress must use the power of the purse to shut down the issuance of legal documents to provide legal status for DACA illegal aliens and the 6 million Illegal aliens that Obama plans to provide legal state to. The Governors of every state should close down the issuance of drivers licenses for illegal aliens, so they cannot use their drivers licenses as proof of residence, so they can register to vote. We encourage voters to volunteer to be poll observers or poll workers to assure Federal voting laws are observed on November 4th.

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”

President Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” Speech on October 27, 1964

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WaPo Publishes Scientific Evidence of Voter Fraud on a Massive Scale — As Previously Predicted By This Here Very Blog

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:29 pm

What you are about to read should be front-page news in every newspaper in the country tomorrow. You know it won’t be — but I want you to treat it as that important . . . because it is. Jesse Richman and David Earnest write in the Washington Post:

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

This is astonishing — but Richman and Earnest fail to convey just how astonishing it is . . . because they don’t explain how many people they are talking about.

Allow me to remedy that.

The progressive think tank Center for American Progress puts the number of noncitizens in the U.S. at 22.1 million in 2012. Of these, “13.3 million were legal permanent residents, 11.3 million were unauthorized migrants, and 1.9 million were on temporary visas.” These numbers are roughly consistent with numbers offered by the Department of Homeland Security (.pdf) and Kaiser Health News. So let’s take 22 million as our number of noncitizens.

Richman and Earnest estimate that 6.4% of noncitizens voted in 2008. 6.4% of 22 million is 1,408,000.

That’s 1.4 million illegal votes likely cast in the presidential election of 2008.

Richman and Earnest also estimate that 2.2% of noncitizens voted in 2010. (In off-year elections, such as 2010 and the approaching election in 2014, turnout is obviously lower.) 2.2% of 22 million is 484,000. That’s nearly half a million illegal votes likely cast in the election of 2010 (and the same number could be cast in the upcoming election).

How important is this? Richman and Earnest say:

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

I don’t like to say I told you so, but . . . ah, hell. Y’all know I actually love to say I told you so. And I have, repeatedly. In November 2008, I cited reports that huge increases in Latino voter registration had accompanied huge increases in illegal immigrant populations, and argued that this was probably not a coincidence. As I said then:

It certainly seems logically possible that there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegal votes cast in this past election. If this is true, it is possible that illegal immigrants decided this election.

If Richman and Earnest are correct, there may well have been hundreds of thousands, indeed almost a million and a half, votes cast by noncitizens (including legal residents who may not vote in federal elections, as well as illegals). And I argued in 2010:

Over time, as our population increases, your vote becomes worth less and less. This problem is exacerbated by factors such as voter fraud. Oh, I know: the liberals all assure us that there is no such thing. But let’s just take one likely rich vein of illegal votes: votes cast by illegal immigrants. What’s that, you say? Votes cast by illegal immigrants? Yes. Estimates say that there are anywhere from 10 million to 18 million illegal immigrants in the country. This means millions are of voting age. What’s more, many of them are experts at obtaining false documents, allowing them to work, drive, and participate in all other aspects of civic life. Do we really think that none of them vote? None? Let’s go with a conservative estimate of 10,000,000 illegal immigrants. If only one percent of them vote — just one percent! — that’s 100,000 illegal votes. That is voter fraud on a massive scale — certainly enough to tip a close election. This sort of thing dilutes your vote.

One percent? In 2010, Richman and Earnest say it was more than two percent, and in 2008 it was more than six percent. And again, I overlooked the population of legal noncitizen permanent residents, which more than doubles the number of people we are talking about. But, although my numbers were conservative, I will modestly concede that I totally nailed the main point — which is: hundreds of thousands of illegal votes are potentially being cast in every federal election, and nobody talks about it.

Always trust content from Patterico.

P.S. I can’t leave this post without noting this by Richman and Earnest:

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

Really? That’s “strikingly ineffective”? (Well, yeah, it could be a lot better. But read on.)

The converse of that is that more than a quarter of the people who were asked for voter ID did not vote. We’re not told how many of the 1.4 million who voted illegally in the 2008 election were asked for IDs, but if voter ID laws were in effect in all 50 states, rather than only about 15 states, we might see over 25% of 1.4 million illegal votes prevented in a presidential election. That’s over 350,000 illegal votes that could potentially be prevented by voter ID laws.

Now: I’m perfectly happy to consider other means for preventing illegal voting. But voter ID laws work, and this study helps prove it.

This is hugely important, folks. Bookmark this post, right now. The next time people try to tell you there is no such thing as voter fraud, I want you to take this link and shove it right down their throats.

P.P.S. The authors do say: “Finally, extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty.” We can’t know for sure whether the extrapolation I present here is overstated, understated, or completely accurate. But one thing we can say: despite the false claims by the left, there is definitely massive voter fraud occurring in every federal election.

October 30, 2014

Honor, Lt. Col. Goodson USMC, thanks to Brother Tom

Filed under: Education, Global Intel, Historical context, Islam, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 2:28 pm

Burial at Sea
by Lt Col George Goodson, USMC (Ret)

In my 76th year, the events of my life appear to me, from time to time, as a series of vignettes. Some were significant; most were trivial…

War is the seminal event in the life of everyone that has endured it. Though I fought in Korea and the Dominican Republic and was wounded there, Vietnam was my war.

Now 42 years have passed and, thankfully, I rarely think of those days in Cambodia , Laos , and the panhandle of North Vietnam where small teams of Americans and Montangards fought much larger elements of the North Vietnamese Army. Instead I see vignettes: some exotic, some mundane:

*The smell of Nuc Mam.
*The heat, dust, and humidity.
*The blue exhaust of cycles clogging the streets.
*Elephants moving silently through the tall grass.
*Hard eyes behind the servile smiles of the villagers.
*Standing on a mountain in Laos and hearing a tiger roar.
*A young girl squeezing my hand as my medic delivered her baby.
*The flowing Ao Dais of the young women biking down Tran Hung Dao.
*My two years as Casualty Notification Officer in North Carolina , Virginia , and Maryland .

It was late 1967. I had just returned after 18 months in Vietnam . Casualties were increasing. I moved my family from Indianapolis to Norfolk , rented a house, enrolled my children in their fifth or sixth new school, and bought a second car.

A week later, I put on my uniform and drove 10 miles to Little Creek, Virginia. I hesitated before entering my new office. Appearance is important to career Marines. I was no longer, if ever, a poster Marine. I had returned from my third tour in Vietnam only 30 days before. At 5’9″, I now weighed 128 pounds – 37 pounds below my normal weight. My uniforms fit ludicrously, my skin was yellow from malaria medication, and I think I had a twitch or two.

I straightened my shoulders, walked into the office, looked at the nameplate on a Staff Sergeant’s desk and said, “Sergeant Jolly, I’m Lieutenant Colonel Goodson. Here are my orders and my Qualification Jacket.”

Sergeant Jolly stood, looked carefully at me, took my orders, stuck out his hand; we shook and he asked, “How long were you there, Colonel?” I replied “18 months this time.” Jolly breathed, you must be a slow learner Colonel.” I smiled.

Jolly said, “Colonel, I’ll show you to your office and bring in the Sergeant Major.

I said, “No, let’s just go straight to his office.”

Jolly nodded, hesitated, and lowered his voice, “Colonel, the Sergeant Major. He’s been in this job two years. He’s packed pretty tight. I’m worried about him.” I nodded.

Jolly escorted me into the Sergeant Major’s office. “Sergeant Major, this is Colonel Goodson, the new Commanding Office. The Sergeant Major stood, extended his hand and said, “Good to see you again, Colonel.”

I responded, “Hello Walt, how are you?” Jolly looked at me, raised an eyebrow, walked out, and closed the door.

I sat down with the Sergeant Major. We had the obligatory cup of coffee and talked about mutual acquaintances. Walt’s stress was palpable. Finally, I said, “Walt, what’s the h-ll’s wrong?”

He turned his chair, looked out the window and said, “George, you’re going to wish you were back in Nam before you leave here. I’ve been in the Marine Corps since 1939. I was in the Pacific 36 months, Korea for 14 months, and Vietnam for 12 months… Now I come here to bury these kids. I’m putting my letter in. I can’t take it anymore.”

I said, “OK Walt. If that’s what you want, I’ll endorse your request for retirement and do what I can to push it through Headquarters Marine Corps.”

Sergeant Major Walt Xxxxx retired 12 weeks later. He had been a good Marine for 28 years, but he had seen too much death and too much suffering. He was used up.

Over the next 16 months, I made 28 death notifications, conducted 28 military funerals, and made 30 notifications to the families of Marines that were severely wounded or missing in action. Most of the details of those casualty notifications have now, thankfully, faded from memory. Four, however, remain.

MY FIRST NOTIFICATION
My third or fourth day in Norfolk , I was notified of the death of a 19 year old Marine. This notification came by telephone from Headquarters Marine Corps. The information detailed:

*Name, rank, and serial number.
*Name, address, and phone number of next of kin.
*Date of and limited details about the Marine’s death.
*Approximate date the body would arrive at the Norfolk Naval Air Station.
*A strong recommendation on whether the casket should be opened or closed.

The boy’s family lived over the border in North Carolina , about 60 miles away. I drove there in a Marine Corps staff car. Crossing the state line intoNorth Carolina , I stopped at a small country store / service station / Post Office. I went in to ask directions.

Three people were in the store. A man and woman approached the small Post Office window. The man held a package. The Store owner walked up and addressed them by name, “Hello John. Good morning Mrs. Cooper.”

I was stunned. My casualty’s next-of-kin’s name was John Cooper!

I hesitated, then stepped forward and said, “I beg your pardon. Are you Mr. and Mrs. John Cooper of (address.)

The father looked at me – I was in uniform – and then, shaking, bent at the waist, he vomited. His wife looked horrified at him and then at me. Understanding came into her eyes and she collapsed in slow motion. I think I caught her before she hit the floor.

The owner took a bottle of whiskey out of a drawer and handed it to Mr. Cooper who drank. I answered their questions for a few minutes. Then I drove them home in my staff car. The storeowner locked the store and followed in their truck. We stayed an hour or so until the family began arriving.

I returned the storeowner to his business. He thanked me and said, “Mister, I wouldn’t have your job for a million dollars.” I shook his hand and said; “Neither would I.”

I vaguely remember the drive back to Norfolk . Violating about five Marine Corps regulations, I drove the staff car straight to my house. I sat with my family while they ate dinner, went into the den, closed the door, and sat there all night, alone.

My Marines steered clear of me for days. I had made my first death notification.

THE FUNERALS
Weeks passed with more notifications and more funerals. I borrowed Marines from the local Marine Corps Reserve and taught them to conduct a military funeral: how to carry a casket, how to fire the volleys and how to fold the flag.

When I presented the flag to the mother, wife, or father, I always said, “All Marines share in your grief.” I had been instructed to say, “On behalf of a grateful nation….” I didn’t think the nation was grateful, so I didn’t say that.

Sometimes, my emotions got the best of me and I couldn’t speak. When that happened, I just handed them the flag and touched a shoulder. They would look at me and nod. Once a mother said to me, “I’m so sorry you have this terrible job.” My eyes filled with tears and I leaned over and kissed her.

ANOTHER NOTIFICATION
Six weeks after my first notification, I had another. This was a young PFC. I drove to his mother’s house. As always, I was in uniform and driving a Marine Corps staff car. I parked in front of the house, took a deep breath, and walked towards the house. Suddenly the door flew open, a middle-aged woman rushed out. She looked at me and ran across the yard, screaming “NO! NO! NO! NO!”

I hesitated. Neighbors came out. I ran to her, grabbed her, and whispered stupid things to reassure her. She collapsed. I picked her up and carried her into the house. Eight or nine neighbors followed. Ten or fifteen later, the father came in followed by ambulance personnel. I have no recollection of leaving.

The funeral took place about two weeks later. We went through the drill. The mother never looked at me. The father looked at me once and shook his head sadly.

ANOTHER NOTIFICATION
One morning, as I walked in the office, the phone was ringing. Sergeant Jolly held the phone up and said, “You’ve got another one, Colonel.” I nodded, walked into my office, picked up the phone, took notes, thanked the officer making the call, I have no idea why, and hung up. Jolly, who had listened, came in with a special Telephone Directory that translates telephone numbers into the person’s address and place of employment.

The father of this casualty was a Longshoreman. He lived a mile from my office. I called the Longshoreman’s Union Office and asked for the Business Manager. He answered the phone, I told him who I was, and asked for the father’s schedule.

The Business Manager asked, “Is it his son?” I said nothing. After a moment, he said, in a low voice, “Tom is at home today.” I said, “Don’t call him. I’ll take care of that.” The Business Manager said, “Aye, Aye Sir,” and then explained, “Tom and I were Marines in WWII.”

I got in my staff car and drove to the house. I was in uniform. I knocked and a woman in her early forties answered the door. I saw instantly that she was clueless. I asked, “Is Mr. Smith home?” She smiled pleasantly and responded, “Yes, but he’s eating breakfast now. Can you come back later?” I said, “I’m sorry. It’s important. I need to see him now.”

She nodded, stepped back into the beach house and said, “Tom, it’s for you.”

A moment later, a ruddy man in his late forties, appeared at the door. He looked at me, turned absolutely pale, steadied himself, and said, “Jesus Christ man, he’s only been there three weeks!”

Months passed. More notifications and more funerals. Then one day while I was running, Sergeant Jolly stepped outside the building and gave a loud whistle, two fingers in his mouth. I never could do that… and held an imaginary phone to his ear.

Another call from Headquarters Marine Corps. I took notes, said, “Got it.” and hung up. I had stopped saying “Thank You” long ago.

Jolly, “Where?”

Me, “Eastern Shore of Maryland . The father is a retired Chief Petty Officer. His brother will accompany the body back from Vietnam …”

Jolly shook his head slowly, straightened, and then said, “This time of day, it’ll take three hours to get there and back. I’ll call the Naval Air Station and borrow a helicopter. And I’ll have Captain Tolliver get one of his men to meet you and drive you to the Chief’s home.”

He did, and 40 minutes later, I was knocking on the father’s door. He opened the door, looked at me, then looked at the Marine standing at parade rest beside the car, and asked, “Which one of my boys was it, Colonel?”

I stayed a couple of hours, gave him all the information, my office and home phone number and told him to call me, anytime.

He called me that evening about 2300 (11:00 PM). “I’ve gone through my boy’s papers and found his will. He asked to be buried at sea. Can you make that happen?” I said, “Yes I can, Chief. I can and I will.”

My wife who had been listening said, “Can you do that?” I told her, “I have no idea. But I’m going to break my ass trying.”

I called Lieutenant General Alpha Bowser, Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force Atlantic, at home about 2330, explained the situation, and asked, “General, can you get me a quick appointment with the Admiral at Atlantic Fleet Headquarters?” General Bowser said,” George, you be there tomorrow at 0900. He will see you.

I was and the Admiral did. He said coldly, “How can the Navy help the Marine Corps, Colonel.” I told him the story. He turned to his Chief of Staff and said, “Which is the sharpest destroyer in port?” The Chief of Staff responded with a name.

The Admiral called the ship, “Captain, you’re going to do a burial at sea. You’ll report to a Marine Lieutenant Colonel Goodson until this mission is completed…”

He hung up, looked at me, and said, “The next time you need a ship, Colonel, call me. You don’t have to sic Al Bowser on my ass.” I responded, “Aye Aye, Sir” and got the h-ll out of his office.

I went to the ship and met with the Captain, Executive Officer, and the Senior Chief. Sergeant Jolly and I trained the ship’s crew for four days. Then Jolly raised a question none of us had thought of. He said, “These government caskets are air tight. How do we keep it from floating?”

All the high priced help including me sat there looking dumb. Then the Senior Chief stood and said, “Come on Jolly. I know a bar where the retired guys from World War II hang out.”

They returned a couple of hours later, slightly the worst for wear, and said, “It’s simple; we cut four 12″ holes in the outer shell of the casket on each side and insert 300 lbs of lead in the foot end of the casket. We can handle that, no sweat.”

The day arrived. The ship and the sailors looked razor sharp. General Bowser, the Admiral, a US Senator, and a Navy Band were on board. The sealed casket was brought aboard and taken below for modification. The ship got underway to the 12-fathom depth.

The sun was hot. The ocean flat. The casket was brought aft and placed on a catafalque. The Chaplin spoke. The volleys were fired. The flag was removed, folded, and I gave it to the father. The band played “Eternal Father Strong to Save.” The casket was raised slightly at the head and it slid into the sea.

The heavy casket plunged straight down about six feet. The incoming water collided with the air pockets in the outer shell. The casket stopped abruptly, rose straight out of the water about three feet, stopped, and slowly slipped back into the sea. The air bubbles rising from the sinking casket sparkled in the in the sunlight as the casket disappeared from sight forever….

The next morning I called a personal friend, Lieutenant General Oscar Peatross, at Headquarters Marine Corps and said, “General, get me out of here. I can’t take this anymore.” I was transferred two weeks later.

I was a good Marine but, after 17 years, I had seen too much death and too much suffering. I was used up.

Vacating the house, my family and I drove to the office in a two-car convoy. I said my goodbyes. Sergeant Jolly walked out with me. He waved at my family, looked at me with tears in his eyes, came to attention, saluted, and said, “Well Done, Colonel. Well Done.”

I felt as if I had received the Medal of Honor!

A veteran is someone who, at one point, wrote a blank
check made payable to ‘The United States of America ‘
for an amount of up to and including their life.

That is Honor and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.

October 29, 2014

Another hidden Obama-Democrat attack on US citizens. What else do we not know? [nc]

Filed under: Business, Econonics, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Political Commentary, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 2:10 pm

Record Number of Americans Renouncing Citizenship Because of Overseas Tax Burdens
ABC News
By ALI WEINBERG 20 hours ago




Bloomberg
Why Are U.S. Tax Policies Sending Americans Packing

Frustration over taxes is as American as apple pie, but some U.S. citizens are becoming so overwhelmed by the Internal Revenue Service that they’ve decided to stop being Americans altogether.

According to new Treasury Department data, 776 Americans renounced their citizenship over three months ending in September for a total of 2,353 renunciations this year, on pace to surpass the previous year’s record number of 2,999 renouncers.

Experts say this growing number of ex-Americans is a side effect of new tax regulations within the last few years intended to crack down on tax evasion but that also make it harder for all citizens abroad to conduct even routine financial transactions. Chief among them is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, passed by Congress in 2010 and in effect since July 2014. FATCA aimed to cut down on the use of secret offshore accounts by requiring foreign banks to report all Americans with accounts over $50,000 or face a 30 percent surcharge on the accounts.

Marylouise Serrato, the executive director of American Citizens Abroad, an advocacy group, said the measure ended up hurting otherwise law-abiding citizens living in foreign countries, of which the most recent estimates say there are 6.32 million. Serrato cited a 2014 poll conducted by the group Democrats Abroad that found an average of 12.7 percent of applicants for various foreign financial services were denied by their banks.

“The problem is not paying taxes or not wanting to pay taxes, the problem is that they’re having an inability to find financial providers and people who are still willing to deal with them as American citizens,” Serrato said.

There’s also the problem of so-called “accidental Americans,” who were born in the United States but have lived most of their lives in Canada. American tax law mandates that citizens pay U.S. taxes regardless of the country in which they reside, meaning that in the last five years, when the U.S. government started cracking down on foreign tax evaders, many Canadians born in the U.S. realized for the first time that they might owe the IRS back taxes.
View gallery
Record Number of Americans Renouncing Citizenship Because …
Record Number of Americans Renouncing Citizenship Because of Overseas Tax Burdens (ABC News)

Among them was one man who was born in the U.S. but was brought to Canada right after birth, who insisted on anonymity because he is still in the process of renouncing his American citizenship – which he didn’t even realize he had until, on a 2011 trip south of the US-Canada border, he was told he needed an American passport in order to re-enter the United States.

He was eventually allowed to pass, but upon returning home realized the agent who let him through was correct. “Sure enough, if you are considered a US citizen you can’t travel into the US using anything other than a US passport,” he said.

He learned he could either declare five years of back taxes to the IRS under a new voluntary disclosure program, which he said would have cost him thousands of dollars in legal and accounting fees, or renounce his American citizenship, which so far has taken him more than a year and several trips to his nearest consulate to do.

“I don’t break any laws,” he said. “It’s an accident of birth.”

And when he does renounce his American citizenship, the Canada resident will also have to pay a onetime fee of $2,350 for what the State Department says is the cost of processing a citizenship renunciation.

That fee is more than a five-fold increase from what the cost was before September 2014, when renouncing one’s American citizenship cost $450.

A State Department spokesperson said the fee was increased to reflect the real, unsubsidized cost of providing the service. “In addition to the work done at the embassy or consulate, the case comes back to the department for a final review and decision, which involves additional resources. A renunciation is a serious decision, and we need to be certain that the person renouncing fully understands the consequences,” the spokesperson said via email.

Serrato’s group American Citizens Abroad recommends that Congress add a “same-country exception” to FATCA, which would exempt citizens living in a foreign country from paying a U.S. tax for financial services from a bank in the same country where they live. The intended goal would be for FATCA to affect only the groups it intended to target: potential tax evaders who live in one country but have foreign accounts in others.

“This is a community that’s not tax evaders and living the high life. There’s a real need, if the US is going to be a global player and we want Americans overseas selling products, that people need to have certain tools in order to do that,” she said.

October 27, 2014

CA Dem (CA 50) Falsely claims to be a Navy Seal to get votes , Capt Johns [nc]

Filed under: Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Military, Political Commentary — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 7:45 pm

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 3:21 AM

James Kimber, the Democrat candidate running for Congress has been found guilty of a “Stolen Valor” offense; for impersonating a US Navy SEAL; Kimber is running against an endorsed Combat Veteran For Congress, Congressman Duncan, D. Hunter. Capt-USMCR (R-CA-50) http://www.hunterforcongress.com . Kimber wore a Navy SEAL Trident device on his US Navy enlisted uniform signifying he qualified as a US Navy SEAL, and misrepresented the fact that he went thru and successfully completing a very rugged 6 month qualification regimen. The details of Kimber’s dishonorable misrepresentation are explained in the below listed article

Navy SEALs complained about Kimber’s dishonest representation and told him to stop wearing the Navy SEAL Trident on his uniform, Kimber ignored their request for one year. It took the Commanding Officer of Kimber’s ship, the USS Reid, to dress Kimber down before an assembly of the entire crew to get his attention. Until the Captain gave Kimber a direct order to remove the Navy SEAL Trident device from his uniform and stop impersonating a US Navy SEAL, Kimber refused to remove the Trident device from his uniform.

Kimber should be rejected by voters in the 50th Congressional District for the dishonorable act of “Stolen Valor”; he is someone who could easily become another one of the many dishonorable politician in Congress we often read about. We honor any Veteran who served his country in the US Armed Forces, but we are very rough on members in the US military who violates a sacred trust and misrepresents the fact that they qualified for a Warfare Designation they are no qualified for, or did not earn the medals that they are wearing on their uniforms. For that reason we have our doubts that Kimber could be trusted not to lie again, especially when misleading the American people and his constituents, on issues of vital interest, would be in his best interest to be untruthful or misleading in his press releases.

The American people do not need to elect another politician to Congress whose word would be suspect, someone who might misrepresent facts and support the multiple lies being told to them about so many Obama administration scandals, by the occupant in the Oval Office. It has been very difficult to keep track of the many intentionally misleading statements and bold faced lies emanating from the White House, Obama administration Cabinet officials, elected members of Congress.

The misleading statements and lies emanating from Obama administration and Congress continue unabated because for 6 years, the left of center liberal media establishment has failed to fulfill the responsibility it was tasked with and given a unique special status by the Founding Fathers, in order for them to conduct honest investigative journalism to keep all government officials honest. The left leaning press continues to be dishonest in their flagrant failure to conduct honest investigative journalism; they continues to cover up one Obama administration scandal after another.

Californians and San Diegans should ask themselves why the Democratic Party would endorse someone who is guilty of “Stolen Valor”, and whose veracity would be suspect in the future, as the standard bearer to run for Congress in the 50th Congressional District. On November 4th, we encourage all voters in the 50th Congressional District to reelect Congressman Duncan D. Hunter to Congress, and voters in 20 states to elect the other 30 endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress listed in the attachment. The 31 endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress will tell the American voters the truth on issues of vital importance to the Republic.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

He Wore a Navy SEAL Trident Without Earning It and Now He’s Running For Congress

Oct. 23, 2014 Elizabeth Kreft

James Kimber, a Democratic served more than 20 years in the Navy, but the “unearned trident” incident nearly cost him his career.

Kimber the Democratic congressional candidate for California’s 50th district, wore a U.S. Navy SEAL trident for more than a year without ever completing the training for the elite force. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune,

The Navy SEAL Trident is a highly recognizable and coveted piece of military insignia that includes an eagle holding a Navy anchor, a trident and a flintlock-style pistol. It is issued only to officers and enlisted service members who complete the Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, a six-month course held at the Naval Special Warfare Training Center in Coronado, Calif.

The newspaper reported that Kimber started SEAL training at the Naval Special Warfare Training Center in Coronado, California, in 1990, but hurt his back during an obstacle course exercise. According to the Union-Tribune, “He remained at the base for several months, and was eventually assigned to the guided-missile frigate Reid.”

James Kimber while he was an enlisted Navy member. (Image source: Kimber for Congress)

A source familiar with the case told TheBlaze Kimber didn’t take the trident off until he was “called out” by SEALs who questioned his timeline.

“The SEALs showed up to the ship and started questioning his story and brought it up to the captain,” he said.

Kimber, who now works as a physician’s assistant, acknowledged to the Union-Tribune that the ship’s captain brought him before the crew and reprimanded him.

“I know this is a big thing and I am very sorry,” said Kimber, who was 32 at the time. “I knew what I was doing, and it was a terrible mistake that I hope doesn’t negate everything else I have done in my life and what I am doing now.”

The SEAL trident is a highly recognizable and coveted insignia with a golden eagle holding a Navy anchor, a trident and a flintlock-style pistol; the badge is issued only to officers and enlisted members who complete the six-month Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training.

Despite the incident, Kimber eventually achieved the rank of senior chief before retiring in 2002. He acknowledged that he thought the trident story would emerge during the campaign, and that he planned to address questions about it if it came up.

“I knew when I decided to run that this might come up, and said to myself that I would answer it if it did,” Kimber said. “It was more than 20 years ago and it was a horribly embarrassing and stupid thing to do … fortunately, I was able to finish my Navy career.”

Kimber, a Democrat, is attempting to unseat three-term Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, who continues to serve in U.S. Marine Corps Reserves and took part in combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hunter said Kimber’s situation is unfortunate.

“He served his country for 20 years and that is worthy of appreciation,” he said.

But a spokesman for Hunter’s re-election campaign told TheBlaze a question of “stolen valor” cuts deep, especially in military community.

“In a place like San Diego, where Navy SEALs are part of the community, this stings more than it would ordinarily, even if it was 20 years ago, because we’re talking about someone who is running for office, who cites his military background, and who would be expected to uphold the public trust,” the spokesman said.

The Kimber campaign office did not return TheBlaze’s request for comment.

October 26, 2014

Stephen Flatow, from Rabbi Brenner Glickman [c]

Filed under: Business, Econonics, Global Intel, Historical context, Islam, Media Check, Political Commentary, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 7:02 pm

[ Additional commentary at the end: Keep in mind while reading this, that the timeline for Counselor Flatow’s actions actually start in the 1970’s when this “Foundation” was taken over by the Iranian Theocracy. Thus, the criminal activity detailed herein, took place during the following administrations: Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, H Bush, and Obama.]

Stephen Flatow: The Amazing Story of What One Person Can Accomplish
By Rabbi Brenner Glickman, Rosh Hashanah 5775/2014

Tonight, I will tell you a story. It is the true story of a seemingly inconsequential man who, driven by passion and determination, has accomplished the extraordinary. It is a David and Goliath story of our times, and it continues to unfold. When you hear this story, I think you will agree that someone needs to write a book about this man. I can’t believe that no one has yet.

Our hero’s name is Stephen Flatow. He is a real-estate attorney in northern New Jersey. He does title work, mostly, out of a small, cluttered office. He is well-regarded in his field, but not especially well known. He makes a living. He is famous, however, in other circles, as an activist. His courage and determination are unmatched. This lone man has stood up to the greatest powers and has not blinked. He has challenged the State Department, the Justice Department, the courts, and the largest banks in the world. He has failed and prevailed, stumbled and triumphed, over and over again. He does not quit. He is driven by the love of his daughter, a daughter who was killed by a suicide bomber twenty years ago. This is his story.

Alisa Flatow was a student at Brandeis University. She chose to spend a semester studying abroad in Jerusalem. After a few months in Israel, she and her roommates decided to spend a weekend at a beach resort in Gaza. This was 1995, soon after the Oslo accords, and Gaza was still under Israeli control. It seems unfathomable now, but people used to vacation in Gaza at the beach resorts. On the way to the beach, their bus was struck by a van filled with explosives. The terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the killing. Seven Israeli soldiers riding on the bus were killed. Alisa was severely wounded, but she did not die right away. The terrorist van was filled with shrapnel that exploded through the windows of the bus and struck her head. She was unconscious, but her body was unharmed.

The doctors called her father in America, and told him to come right away. When he landed in Ben Gurion airport, government agents met him on the runway, and escorted him straight from the plane to the hospital. By the time he arrived, Alisa was brain-dead. The doctors offered their condolences, and asked the father if he would be willing to donate her organs.

This was not a simple question. The Flatow family was Orthodox and observant. It was not customary for Orthodox Jews to donate organs, and they were not sure it was allowed by Jewish law. So the parents called their rabbi and asked what to do. He told them to donate the organs, and so they did.

That single act became a sensation in Israel. To understand its significance, I need to give a little background information. There is much in Jewish law and custom that would discourage organ donation. It has been our longstanding tradition to treat a dead body as sacred. Our custom is to watch over it, cleanse it, and prepare it carefully for burial. The body is buried whole and unaltered. That is why rabbinic authorities have generally discouraged autopsies.

But organ donation is special. It presents the opportunity to save a life. In Jewish law, the saving of a human life takes special precedence. You can violate just about all the other commandments if you can save a life. Therefore, Jewish law does not just allow organ donation, it requires it. Reform and Conservative rabbis immediately encouraged organ donation, and by the 1970s, Orthodox rabbis did as well.

The problem was that most Jews in Israel were not aware of this. The rates of organ donation were extraordinarily low. Israel was part of a European consortium of organ sharing nations, but was suspended because too few Israelis were registered donors. It was a stunning irony for a nation famous as an innovator of advanced medical technologies. The problem was that Israelis knew about the tradition of burying a body whole; they were not so aware that their rabbis allowed organ donation.

Throughout the 1970s and 80s, various medical groups and the government in Israel tried to educate the public, but nothing worked. Organ donation rates were terribly low. People were desperate for organs, but few were donating. It just wasn’t what people did.

And then the Flatows offered their daughter’s organs to the people of Israel. The news made headlines in every newspaper throughout the nation. Her heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas, and corneas were able to save six lives in Israel. Notably, at least one of the recipients was Arab Palestinian. The people of Israel were amazed, and grateful. They had felt so alone in suffering against terrorism, and here this family from America made such a gesture. They felt that the world Jewish community was with them. We were one.

Days later, Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin came to Washington DC and spoke before a gathering of 12,000 American Jews. What he told them would be printed in newspapers throughout America. He spoke about what Alisa’s gift meant to the Israeli people. “Today,” he said, “her heart beats in Jerusalem.” There is more. After Alisa’s death, the Flatows lives were shattered. Alisa’s mother withdrew into herself and her home. But the father, Stephen, decided to take action. He wanted justice. It was widely reported that the State of Iran was the sponsor and financial backer of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It angered him that there were no consequences for Iran. They had funded his daughter’s murderers, and no one was doing anything about it. The bomber himself was killed. The terrorist ring was being pursued by Israel. Stephen Flatow decided to take it upon himself to go after Iran.

A lawyer by training, he sought justice through the courts. He had a brilliant idea. If he and other victims of terror could file suit against Iran, they could exact punishment on the regime. They would make it costly for states to sponsor terror, and then maybe Iran would think twice about doing it again.

But there was a problem. United States law did not allow private citizens to sue foreign governments. It was expressly forbidden. So Stephen Flatow went to Washington to change the law. His senator, the Jewish Frank Lautenberg, happened to be in Israel at the time of Alyssa’s death. He took a special interest in her family and drafted legislation. Flatow testified before congress, and even gained the backing of President Clinton. Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 to make an exception to the longstanding rule. In cases of state-sponsored terror, individual US citizens could sue foreign nations for damages in US courts. It was the first victory.

It did not last. The courts threw it out. So back to Washington he went for a new law, one written specifically to override the objections of the court. Once again he sued the state of Iran in a US court. But his time, one of his allies became an adversary. The Clinton administration began to see Flatow as interfering in national diplomacy. The White House was against Iran, but they did not want Flatow dictating the terms. So the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the case, and actually filed a brief in support of Iran and against the victims of terror. Once more, Flatow returned to Congress and this time he got a third law that gave citizens even more strength to sue foreign governments, this time with teeth.

Finally, in 1997, he received his judgment. A court ruled in favor of the Flatows and against Iran. The family was awarded $26 million in compensatory damages, and over $200 million in punitive damages.

But the issue was hardly over. How do you collect money from a rogue state? They weren’t paying. Stephen Flatow devised a plan. Since the United States had ended diplomatic ties with Iran following the rise of the Ayatollah, the Iranian embassy in Washington and the residence of the Iranian ambassador have been in control of the United States Government. The State Department holds them in trust with the goal of returning them to Iran someday when relations resume. Stephen Flatow now had a ruling that said the Iranian government owed him $247 million. He sought possession of the embassy and the residence, property owned by Iran. The State Department refused. They feared that if the United States confiscated sovereign property here, our embassies and properties abroad would become threatened. So instead, they paid Flatow $20 million from US funds with the understanding that the United States would collect that money from Iran someday.

Stephen Flatow was furious. His goal was not to get money. His goal was to make Iran pay so they would stop sponsoring terror. He had won in court and he had received money, but Iran had still not paid one cent.

And this leads to the third chapter of this amazing saga. Stephen Flatow did not give up. He began to look for other assets in the United States that were owned by the government of Iran. Officially, there were none. United States sanctions prohibited Iran from doing any business in the United States, or for anyone to do business with Iran in the United States. But Flatow had suspicions that a charitable foundation in New York was actually a front, laundering money for the Iranian regime.

Why would the Iranians funnel their money through New York? Because the financial exchanges are there, and you can’t get anything done internationally without going through New York’s markets. Iran’s economy, its nuclear weapons development, its sponsorship of Hezbollah and other jihadists groups – all required moving money across currencies. They needed a secret foothold in New York. The Alavi Foundation was established decades ago by the Shah to promote Iranian culture abroad. It owned a gleaming skyscraper on 5th Avenue in Manhattan, between Rockefeller Center and the Museum of Modern Art. Ivan Boesky used to office there. Stephen Flatow did a lot of digging, and then filed papers in court demonstrating that the foundation and the building were secretly operated by the Iranian government. And if they belonged to the state of Iran, they were subject to his financial ruling.

Stephen Flatow’s case was a civil matter, but it came to the attention of a young analyst sitting in a cubicle at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. If what Flatow was saying was true, there was some serious criminal wrongdoing going on. That young analyst’s name was Eitan Arusy. Before he starting working for the District Attorney, he served in the Israel Defense Force as a spokesman. He was one of the first responders to the scene of the carnage on the day that Alisa Flatow’s bus was bombed. He had a special interest in the case. The district attorney’s office did their own digging, and came to the same conclusion as Flatow – the Alavi Foundation was actually a front for Bank Melli, the State of Iran’s government-owned national bank. But how did the Iranians do it? How did they get their money in and out of the United States? The district attorney’s office soon discovered that two European Banks, Credit Suisse and Lloyds of London, were moving money and falsifying documents for the Iranians. When the FBI raided the records of the charity, they found vast deposits from Credit Suisse and Lloyds. The banks cooperated with investigators. They provided emails and memos detailing how they took Iranian money and sent it to the United States in their own names. Without admitting guilt, Lloyds agreed to pay a fine of $350 million, and Credit Suisse $536 million.

They were not alone. It was soon discovered that most of the major European banks were laundering money for the Iranians into the United States, in direct violation of US law. Barclays Bank settled in 2010, paying the United States $298 million. In 2012, ING, Standard Chartered, and HSBC also settled. HSBC agreed to pay $1.9 billion.

Then came the big one. While all these banks were making deals with the US government, two employees of BNP Paribas became whistleblowers. They shared with investigators that their bank had laundered tens of billions of dollars of Iranian money. They had also laundered money for Sudan while its regime was committing genocide.

BNP is the largest bank in France. This summer you may have seen the news. BNP became the first bank to admit guilt in laundering money for the Iranian government. They agreed to pay $8.9 billion in fines to the United States. It was far and away the largest penalty ever paid by a bank in history. The New York Times headline said it best: “A Grieving Father Pulls a Thread that Unravels BNP’s Illegal Deals.” A dad lost his girl. The hole in his life will never be filled. He thinks about her every day. He never gives up. He is a small-time attorney doing title work in New Jersey. But his tenacity and his grit and his smarts were beyond anyone’s estimation. This one man in New Jersey uncovered an international conspiracy of bank fraud.

The story is not over. Stephen Flatow is not done. The man who instantly changed the culture of organ donation is Israel is trying to do the same here in America. He takes every opportunity to speak to Orthodox congregations to encourage organ donation. Though the rate of donation consent in America is strong at 60%, the rate among Flatow’s fellow Orthodox Jews is only 5%. He is on a mission to change that.

He and his wife have also established a foundation in Alisa’s name. They sponsor young Jewish women from around the world to take a semester of study in Jerusalem. The money they have received in their fight against Iran is now sponsoring women’s Torah study and the vitality of the State of Israel.

And, in the months ahead, he may finally achieve his goal of making Iran actually pay. A federal judge has the ruled that the assets of the Alavi Foundation be liquidated. The gleaming office tower in New York and other properties around America will be sold and the proceeds will go to the victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism. That will be Iranian money. Finally, Iran will pay a price.

All of this because of one man in Northern New Jersey. One man who never quit.

Earlier this summer, I did my own digging and I found Stephen Flatow’s contact information. I sent him an email.

Dear Mr. Flatow,

My name is Brenner Glickman and I am a rabbi with a congregation in Sarasota, Florida. I admire you and am writing a sermon about you and your family for this High Holidays. Thank you for all that you have done and continue to do for Israel and America.
You are an inspiration.

He replied the same day:
Dear Rabbi Glickman,

Thanks very much for your note. But it’s really Alisa who has been the source of strength and encouragement these past 19 years. As I like to remind people , I’m still her father and we do anything for our children.
Stephen Flatow

[Aside from the obvious corruption evident in the entire narrative, here are some things that are passed over; both FINRA and the OCC were established decades ago to prevent all of this. High members of the administrations listed in my opening comment MUST have known, including those at the Cabinet Level, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Department of Labor, Securities and Exchange Commission, to list just a few. Whether or not these cabinet level officiasl informed their respective president or respective chief of staff, is a matter for the pertinent Congressional Oversight Committee.

Y’all keep wondering and sending me emails about secession, but it is the only way to get rid of this institutional corruption which never reaches the media, much less your notice. I redirect your attention to, once again, the posts below on wealth, economics, education, and the argument for secession.

Secession is the only way to remove all of the bureaucrats who have allowed this form of corruption to exist for as long as it has, and to prevent its continuance.]

October 21, 2014

UN/Obama Arms Limitations threaten Israel, Republic of China, and YOU

Filed under: Econonics, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Law Enforcement, Military, Political Commentary, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 8:21 pm

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Sep 12

The assault on Americans Citizen’s rights to own and bear arms in accordance with provisions of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is being threatened by the Obama administration’s support for the UN Small Arms Treaty This UN Small-Arms Treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme.

The below listed Op-Ed by Admiral James A Lyons’52 USN (Ret) (former Commander of the US Pacific Fleet and the Senior US Military Representative to the United Nations) is a warning all Americans of the threat ;posed by Obama to void provisions of the Second Amendment by signing the UN Small-Arms Treaty, allowing the UN to control small arms in the United States.

Obama has the support of the elected Democrat Senators to approve the UN Small Arms Treaty. Those Democrat Senators who agree with Obama, standing for re-election in November should be defeated at the polls. The endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress in the attachment, running for election in 2014 (three of whom are running for the US Senate), support the rights of all Americans to acquire and bear arms in accordance with the US Constitution. .

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

From: Adm James A. Lyons, Jr
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 6:19 AM
To: Joseph R. John
Subject: Op-Ed – Small-arms treaty, big Second Amendment threat

My latest op-ed published in the Washington Times today.

All The Best
Ace

James A. Lyons, Jr.
Admiral, USN (ret)
President/CEO

LION Associates, LLC
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/16/lyons-small-arms-treaty-big-second-amendment-threa/#
LYONS: Small-arms treaty, big Second Amendment threat
Ceding Senate constitutional authority to the U.N. would be unwise

By James A. Lyons

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Lost Gun Rights Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

Enlarge Photo

Lost Gun Rights Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times more >

In a little-noticed action, the U.N. General Assembly on April 2, 2013, adopted by “majority vote” an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) with the objective of regulating the international trade in conventional arms from small arms to major military equipment. The treaty’s lofty objectives were to foster peace and security by limiting uncontrolled destabilizing arms transfer to areas of conflict. In particular, it was also meant to prevent countries that abuse human rights from acquiring arms.

While the record of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty discussions makes no mention of it, the genesis for regulating the unrestrained transfer of conventional arms to conflict areas, Third World countries and human rights violators was a key policy of President Carter’s administration. Shortly after his inauguration in 1977, he initialed a policy of restraint on conventional-arms transfer and linked such control to the human rights record of potential recipients, particularly in Latin America. To implement this policy, the Carter administration proposed to the Soviet Union, the world’s second-leading supplier of arms, that it open negotiations to conclude such an agreement. These meetings were known as the Conventional Arms Transfer Talks.

The first region selected was Latin America, because there was less competition there than anywhere else in the world between the United States and the Soviet Union. As the director of political-military affairs, I was the Joint Chiefs of Staff representative in the U.S. delegation, which was headed by Les Gelb from the State Department. Suffice to say, after four meetings over a 12-month period and the “delusion” that a successful agreement could be achieved, the talks collapsed. The esoteric objectives may sound good in the faculty lounge, but they fail to pass muster in the real world.

The Soviets were always the reluctant suitors in this enterprise. They were not about to restrict the transfer of arms in areas that they viewed to be in their political interests. Certainly, there was not unanimity of purpose in the Carter administration. The Joint Chiefs of Staff viewed the objectives as an unnecessary infringement on our strategy and sovereignty.

For the record, the Obama administration’s Conventional Arms Transfer policy issued on Jan. 16 embraces many of the objectives of the Carter administration’s policy, as well as the current U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. However, it makes no mention of either one.

A number of major defects in the U.N. treaty were detailed in a letter sent to President Obama in October 2013 by 50 senators — both Republicans and Democrats. The first problem was that the treaty was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly, not by consensus, a condition called for by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. After entry into force, the senators contend, the Arms Trade Treaty can be amended by majority vote of signatory countries, effectively negating the Senate’s constitutional treaty power and handing it to foreign governments. Even the State Department concedes, the senators wrote, that the treaty “includes language that could hinder the United States from fulfilling its strategic, legal and moral commitments to provide arms to key allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel.”

Of most concern is the infringement on our constitutional rights, the senators charged. The Arms Trade Treaty “includes only a weak nonbinding reference to the lawful ownership, use of, and trade in firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights.” When coupled with the treaty’s ceding of interpretive authority to other countries, this poses a direct threat to the Second Amendment.

It should be noted that neither of Virginia’s senators, Mark Warner or Tim Kaine, signed the Senate letter against a U.N. treaty that threatens Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, and undermines American sovereignty.

Failing to sign the letter is not the first time Mr. Warner went AWOL on the Arms Trade Treaty. In January 2013, before Secretary of State John F. Kerry signed the treaty, the Senate passed a budget amendment sponsored by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the purpose of “upholding Second Amendment rights, which shall include preventing the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” Mr. Warner and Mr. Kaine were among the 46 voting “nay” on the amendment.

Supporters of the treaty say there’s nothing to worry about, because the Second Amendment is a constitutional protection, and nothing in a treaty can undermine it. Gun rights champions strongly disagree. “The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, following Mr. Kerry’s signing of the treaty. “This treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme. The NRA will continue working with the United States Senate to oppose ratification of the ATT.”

With 50 senators opposed to the Arms Trade Treaty, we can hope its prospects for Senate advice and consent are small — with or without the support of liberals such as Mr. Warner and Mr. Kaine. The Joint Chiefs of Staff also need to indicate clearly their concern, as it affect our strategy and sovereignty.

James A. Lyons, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

October 16, 2014

Thomas Jefferson vs Islam/ The Term Leatherneck (USMC), from Bud [nc]

Filed under: Education, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Media Check, Military, Political Commentary, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 10:55 pm

An interesting read.

Here is a little history. Including how the term ‘Leatherneck’ came to be . .

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago,
the United States had declared war on Islam, and Thomas Jefferson led the charge!
At the height of the eighteenth century, Muslim pirates were the terror
of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North Atlantic. They
attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant
ransoms. Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment
and wrote heart breaking letters home, begging their government and
family members to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors
demanded.

These extortionists of the high seas represented the Islamic nations of Tripoli, Tunis,
Morocco, and Algiers – collectively referred to as the Barbary Coast –
and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the new American
Republic.

Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had
been under the protection of Great Britain. When the U.S. declared
its independence and entered into war, the ships of the United States
were protected by France. However, once the war was won, America had to
protect its own fleets. Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy.
Beginning in1784, seventeen years before he would become president, Thomas
Jefferson became America’s Minister to France. That same year, the
U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by following in
the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes to the Barbary States,
rather than engaging them in war.

In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships,
and the Dey of Algiers demanded an unheard-of
ransom of $60,000. It was a plain and simple case of extortion,
and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any further
payments. Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a
coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states
into peace. A disinterested Congress decided to pay the
ransom.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain
to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved
American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards
America, a nation with which they had no previous
contacts.

The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had
answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it
was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have
acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and
duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found,
and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every
Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations,
as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including
George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only
further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years, the American
government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American
ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to
over twenty percent of the United States government annual revenues in
1800.

Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being
sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha
of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000
plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming. That changed
everything.

Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms,
what he could do with his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting
down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the
United States.
Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed suit.
Jefferson, until now, had been against America raising a
naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, but having watched his
nation be cowed by Islamic thuggery for long enough, decided that it was
finally time to meet force with force.

He dispatched a squadron
of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim nations of the
Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget. Congress
authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all vessels and
goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to “cause to be done all other acts of
precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify”.

When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and
acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will
and the might to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to
Tripoli.
The war with Tripoli lasted for four more
years, and raged up again in 1815. The bravery of the U.S. Marine
Corps in these wars led to the line “to the shores of Tripoli” in the
Marine Hymn, They would forever be known as “leathernecks” for the
leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from
being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy
ships.

Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified
doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson
quite deeply. America had a tradition of religious tolerance, the
fact that Jefferson, himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion
the world had ever seen. A religion based on supremacism, whose
holy book not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers
was unacceptable to him. His greatest fear was that someday this
brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the
United States.
This should bother every American. That the Islams
have brought about women-only classes and swimming times at
taxpayer-funded universities and public pools; that Christians, Jews,
and Hindus have been banned from serving on juries where Muslim
defendants are being judged, Piggy banks and Porky Pig tissue dispensers
have been banned from workplaces because they offend Islamist
sensibilities. Ice cream has been discontinued at certain Burger
King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks similar to the
Arabic script for Allah, public schools are pulling pork from
their menus, on and on in the news papers….

It’s death by a thousand cuts, or inch-by-inch as some refer to it,
and most Americans have no idea that this battle is being waged every day across
America. By not fighting back, by allowing groups to obfuscate
what is really happening, and not insisting that the Islamists adapt to
our own culture, the United States is cutting its own throat with a
politically correct knife, and helping to further the Islamists agenda.
Sadly, it appears that today’s America would rather be politically
correct than victorious.

Any doubts, just Google Thomas Jefferson vs the Muslim World

Happy Remembering!

October 10, 2014

Our Judicial Dictatorship, by Pat Buchanan [nc]

Filed under: Business, Econonics, Education, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Law Enforcement, Media Check, Military, Political Commentary, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:46 pm

http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/our-judicial-dictatorship/

Our Judicial Dictatorship

BY PAT BUCHANAN • OCTOBER 10, 2014 • 900 WORDS

• 2 COMMENTS

Do the states have the right to outlaw same-sex marriage?

Not long ago the question would have been seen as absurd. For every state regarded homosexual acts as crimes.

Moreover, the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage had all been enacted democratically, by statewide referenda, like Proposition 8 in California, or by Congress or elected state legislatures.

But today rogue judges and justices, appointed for life, answerable to no one, instruct a once-democratic republic on what laws we may and may not enact.

Last week, the Supreme Court refused to stop federal judges from overturning laws banning same-sex marriage. We are now told to expect the Supreme Court itself to discover in the Constitution a right of men to marry men and of women to marry women.

How, in little more than half a century, did the American people fall under the rule of a judicial dictatorship where judges and justices twist phrases in the Constitution to impose their alien ideology on this once-free people?

What brings the issue up is both the Court decision on same-sex marriage, and the death of my friend, Professor William J. Quirk, of the South Carolina University School of Law.

In “Judicial Dictatorship” (1995), Bill wrote of the revolution that had been imposed against the will of the majority, and of how Congress and the people might rout that revolution.

The instrument of revolution is judicial review, the doctrine that makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter, the decider, of what the Constitution says, and cedes to the Court limitless power to overturn laws enacted by the elective branches of government.

Jefferson said that to cede such authority to the Supreme Court “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Was he not right?

Consider what has transpired in our lifetime.

The Supreme Court has ordered the de-Christianization of all public institutions in what was a predominantly Christian country. Christian holy days, holidays, Bibles, books, prayers and invocations were all declared to be impermissible in public schools and the public square.

Secular humanism became, through Supreme Court edict, our established religion in the United States.

And the American people took it.

Why was there not massive civil disobedience against this anti-Christian discrimination, as there was against segregation? Why did Congress, which has the power to abolish every federal district and appellate court and to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not act?

Each branch of government, wrote Jefferson, is “independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action.”

“No branch has the absolute or final power to control the others, especially an unelected judiciary,” added Quirk.

In 1954, the Supreme Court ordered the desegregation of all public schools. But when the Court began to dictate the racial balance of public schools, and order the forced busing of children based on race across cities and county lines to bring it about, a rebellion arose.

Only when resistance became national and a violent reaction began did our black-robed radicals back down.

Yet the Supreme Court was not deterred in its resolve to remake America. In 1973, the Court discovered the right to an abortion in the Ninth Amendment. Then it found, also hidden in the Constitution, the right to engage in homosexual sodomy.

When Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, Bill Quirk urged it to utilize Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, and write in a provision stripping the Supreme Court of any right to review the act.

Congress declined, and the Court, predictably, dumped over DOMA.

Republican presidents have also sought to curb the Supreme Court’s aggressions through the appointment process. And largely failed.

Of four justices elevated by Nixon, three voted for Roe. Ford’s nominee John Paul Stevens turned left. Two of Reagan’s, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, went wobbly. Bush I’s David Souter was soon caucusing with the liberals.

Today, there are four constitutionalists on the Court. If the GOP loses the White House in 2016, then the Court is gone, perhaps forever.

Yet, the deeper problem lies in congressional cowardice in refusing to use its constitutional power to rein in the Court.

Ultimately, the failure is one of conservatism itself.

Indeed, with neoconservatives in the van, the GOP hierarchy is today in headlong retreat on same-sex marriage. Its performance calls to mind the insight of that unreconstructed Confederate chaplain to Stonewall Jackson, Robert Lewis Dabney, on the failure of conservatives to halt the march of the egalitarians:

“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader…. Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious, for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.”

Amen.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.” Copyright 2014 Creators.com

October 8, 2014

Ain’t it curious? We can no longer Access Indonesian legislation?

Filed under: Illegal Aliens, Islam, Media Check, Political Commentary, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:07 pm

Since 2008, both on this blog and in our podcast, (www.blogtalkradio.com/just-plainb-bill-show archived) we commented on Domestic Relations Laws, specifically those regarding adoption, and those regarding adoption laws in Islamic countries, i.e. Indonesia.

We have maintained, since 2008, that Barack Hussein Mohammed Soetoro-Obama, is not an American Citizen, as well as he is, as a matter of law, a Muslim. At that time, we research Indonesian Adoption law and concluded these because the law requires that, as a matter of LAW,, since the statute requires that the adoptee, i.e. BHO, legally becomes a member of the family as if born into it. This is defined as a matter of FACT, thus, one born into an Indonesian family is an Indonesian citizen, thus, BHO’s U.S. citizenship, if it existed at all, disappears, as Indonesians are not born with U.S. citizenship.

For those interested, ask an American adoption lawyer what happens to a Chinese, Russian, Mexican, Canadian, or any other, except Israeli, foreign child’s native born citizenship when that child is adopted by an American family. Ask, go ahead, I dare you.

Another aspect of Islamic Adoption laws, is that an adopter may ONLY adopt a child of the same religion as he is. The Soetoro’s are Muslim. Under Indonesian Adoption law, they may only adopt Muslim children.

Anyhow, I went to http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii to confirm my research, and Indonesian Legislation has been removed. Here’s what I got when I tried to access Indonesian Adoption Law:

WorldLII [Home] [Help] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Feedback]
404 File not found

Sorry, the page you have requested does not exist. The link you selected might be old or outdated. If the link is from one of our pages, please report it to the feedback address. Otherwise, report the fault to the pages maintainer.

You may be able to find what you’re looking for from one of the links below:

WorldLII Home Page

Or see generally:

Browse WorldLII Databases
Search WorldLII Databases
World Law
About WorldLII
Feedback

404: Object Not Found

Y’all keep wondering why I keep pushing secession, why I keep pushing that y’all repost what’s posted here, and why I keep pushing The Albany Plan Re-Visited, 2nd Edition pre-pub ordering at Tate Publishing.

October 2, 2014

Saving America, Dinesh D’Souza, [nc]

Filed under: Business, Econonics, Education, Global Intel, Historical context, Islam, Media Check, Military, Political Commentary, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:29 pm

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Oct 1 at 5:34 PM

The below listed speech is the most important speech, in support of the Republic, that I have listened to, since I listened to many important speeches by President
Ronald Reagan over a 14 year period. I believe I can speak with a degree of authority and confidence, because of my association with President Ronald Reagan and the Reagan administration over that 14 year period. The below listed keynote speech was given by Dinesh D’Souza, author and producer of the most successful documentary film in history, “America”; the address was given on September 6, 2014 at the Town and Country Hotel in San Diego, California during a Gala Event to introduce the Combat Veterans For Congress to the national press corps.

I was very fortunate to work with and for President Reagan, on and off, for a 14 years period. I began my association with former California Governor Ronald Reagan during his campaign for the Republican nomination for President, when he was running against President Gerald Ford. That campaign took us to the Republican Convention in Kansas City, where Gov Reagan lost what was until then, a very close nomination race, but because of the power of incumbent who was able to offer delegates from key states with certain benefits, Gov Reagan lost. I continued to work with President Reagan during his two terms and for 2 years after he left office; when his staff in Century City would ask me if I would volunteer to do advances for the former President, when he was scheduled to make speeches to various audiences..

​

DineshSpeechCombatVets.mp4

​[if you cannot access the speech here, go to http://www.combatveteransforcongress.org for an active link. Or, Capt Johns sent this correction: http://youtu.be/y0XUBdC89Mk and I’m not sure that the . in tu.be is correct, but it IS on youtube, so readily available for those interested, and y’all should be!]

I encourage you to pass this very important video on to everyone in your address book who cares about the survival of the Republic envisioned and created by our Founding Fathers. That Republic that we knew and raised in our youth is under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office, and is intent on changing it to a Socialist State. The endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress, listed in the attachment who are running in 2014, will fight to protect our Judeo-Christian Heritage, the “Freedoms” outlined in The Bill of Rights, and will fight to protect and defend the US Constitution——-the US Constitution they raised their right hand and swore to protect and defend, and did so on foreign fields of combat, while repeatedly putting their lives on the line.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

September 23, 2014

Europe will soon be “Juden-frei”, by Lloyd Levy [c]

Filed under: Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Media Check, Military, Police, Political Commentary, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 3:31 pm

[Where can they go once Israel is destroyed, which is what will happen as King Barry and Princess Hillary have let Iran develop nuclear bombs?]

BRITAIN ON WAY TO BECOMING JUDENFREI.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Lloyd+Levy++London++18+August+2014

I actually never thought I would have to write an article like this, from the green and pleasant land of England.

However it is becoming truly frightening to be a Jew in UK. What is so remarkable is how quickly it all appears to have happened. One can now start to experience what it must have been like in parts of Europe under Nazi threat, when friends and neighbours

suddenly and without warning, turn on you because you are Jewish.

In the last week or so alone, we have seen the Tricycle Theatre banning the annual JEWISH film festival, which is one of the most important Jewish events of the calendar. The famous Edinburgh Fringe arts festival has also banned Israeli connected theatre groups.

We have the Parliamentary Member from Bradford, a large town in Yorkshire, announcing his town to be “Israeli” free, as well as reading that a leading Scottish Nationalist has apparently declared that an independent Scotland will be “Israeli free”. None of us are surely naïve enough to not understand that in practice it means Judenfrei, unless individual Jews renounce their

loyalty to Israel.

Leading Supermarkets have been invaded and ransacked by anti-Israel terrorists, threatening staff and customers.

The supermarkets have succumbed to this terrorism, with rumours swirling around that they are soon to stop

selling all Israeli products. Only a day or two ago, a major supermarket in Central London, actually took all kosher products off the shelf. Think about that- all Jewish products banned, many not even from Israel at all.

Over 100,000 people marched through London recently in an anti Israel and anti Jewish orgy of sheer hatred.

I know people whose lifelong friends are putting the most hideous anti-Semitic rantings on their “Facebook” pages.

Our Jewish so called leaders have let us down. I personally haven’t seen nor read any leading member of our Jewish representative bodies, or Rabbis, standing up in public for our community .

This is not a good time to be a Jew in Britain. Apparently in France it is far worse.. We are being cowed and terrorised by home grown anti-Semites, and by imported oriental ones. [British “code” for muslims.]

Only in the last few days have some of the leading Newspaper columnists begun to wake up to the hatred they have themselves stirred up by their coverage of Gaza, replete with its ancient Jewish blood libel of deliberate

child sacrifice.

Natan Sharansky said recently that Europe is death to Jews, and he is so correct. History shows that anything can generate the hatred. If it wasn’t Gaza it would be something else.

Lloyd Levy

London

18 August 2014

[Secession. Once there is no place left for American Values, y’all will all pray to Mecca. Me? I’ll be dead with “my gun and my Bible” (which BTW has BOTH the Old and New Testaments in it), in my hands!

“First the Saturday People, then the Sunday People.”]

September 17, 2014

Ending the State’s “Security” Monopoly, from Butch [c]

Filed under: Law Enforcement, Police, Political Commentary — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:54 pm

[There is too much truth in this to not have posted it. As the author points out, the true source of security failure is the political class. I agree with a bunch of what is here, but not all, yet do not feel any need to put any comment of mine beyond this, and, I wouldn’t be a police officer (LEO=Law Enforcement Officer) for almost anything in the world! God Bless All of You!]

http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2014/09/call-anti-police-ending-states-security.html

Monday, September 15, 2014
Call the Anti-Police: Ending the State’s “Security” Monopoly

Dale Brown (center) with Garrett Ean and Pete Eyre.

|”How would things be different,” muses Dale Brown of the Detroit-based Threat Management Center, “if police officers were given financial rewards and commendations for resolving dangerous situations peacefully, rather than for using force in situations where it’s neither justified nor effective?”

Brown’s approach to public safety is “precisely the opposite of what police are trained and expected to do,” says the 44-year-old entrepreneur. The TMC eschews the “prosecutorial philosophy of applied violence” and the officer safety uber alles mindset that characterize government law enforcement agencies. This is because his very successful private security company has an entirely different mission – the protection of persons and property, rather than enforcing the will of the political class. Those contrasting approaches are displayed to great advantage in proto-dystopian Detroit.

“We’ve been hired by three of the most upscale neighborhoods in Detroit to provide 24/7 security services,” Brown proudly informed me during a telephone interview. “People who are well-off are very willing to pay for Lamborghini-quality security services, which means that our profit margin allows us to provide free services to people who are poor, threatened, and desperate for the kind of help the police won’t provide.”

“Unlike the police, we don’t respond after a crime has been committed to conduct an investigation and – some of the time, at least – arrest a suspect,” Brown elaborates. “Our approach is based on deterrence and prevention. Where prevention fails, our personnel are trained in a variety of skills – both psychological and physical – to dominate aggressors without killing them.”

Police typically define their role in terms of what they are permitted to do to people, rather than what they are required to do for them. Brown’s organization does exactly the reverse, even when dealing with suspected criminals.

To illustrate, Brown refers to an incident from a security patrol in which he encountered a black teenager “who was walking in a neighborhood at about 3:00 a.m. dressed in a black hooded sweatshirt, doing what is sometimes called `the drift’ – it was pretty clear he was up to something.”

Rather than calling the police – who, giventheir typical four-hour response time, wouldn’t have arrived soon enough to be of any help, as if helping were part of their job description – Brown took action that was both preventive and non-aggressive.

“I told him, `There are criminals here who might rob you, so you’ll get free bodyguard service anytime you’re in the neighborhood,’” Brown related to me. “I also asked for his name and personal information for a `Good person file’ that would clear him with the cops next time he decided to go jogging in a black hoodie a three in the morning. He didn’t have to give me that information, of course, but he told me what I needed to know – and we’ve never seen him there again.”

Brown and his associates take a similar approach to dealing with minor problems that usually result in police citations that clog court dockets and blight the lives of harmless people.

“When we see someone who is drunk or otherwise intoxicated, we offer to take their keys and call their families to get them home,” he reports. “This way we keep them safe from harm – and, just as importantly, protect them from prosecution. Again, everything we do is the opposite of what the police do. If you have a joint in your pocket, the cops will be all over you – but if you’re facing actual danger, they’re nowhere to be found, and aren’t required to help you even if they show up.”

That contrast is most visible in confrontations with potentially dangerous people. Brown’s company receives referrals to provide security for people who face active threats, such as victims of domestic violence. One representative case involved a young mother whose daughter had been abducted by a violent, abusive father with a lengthy criminal history. The child was rescued and reunited with her mother without guns being drawn or anybody being hurt.

For reasons of accountability and what the private sector calls “quality assurance,” Brown and his colleagues recorded that operation, as they document nearly everything else they do. However, they weren’t playing to the cameras. The same can’t be said of the Detroit PD SWAT team that stormed the home of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones at midnight in May 2010 while filming the assault for a cable television program.

Officer Joseph Weekley, who burst through the door carrying a ballistic shield and an MP5 submachine gun, shot and killed Aiyana, who had been sleeping on the living room couch. By the time she was killed terrified little girl had already been burned by a flash-bang grenade that had been hurled into the living room.

The home was surrounded with toys and other indicia that children resided therein, and neighbors had pleaded with the police not to carry out the blitzkrieg. The cops did arrest a suspect in a fatal shooting, but he resided in a different section of the same building. In any case, the suspect could have been taken into custody without a telegenic paramilitary assault – if the safety of those on the receiving end of police violence had been factored into the SWAT team’s calculations.

Owing in no small measure to public outrage, Weekly has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and careless discharge of a weapon resulting in death. A jury deadlocked on the charges in July 2013. Weekley now faces a second trial that will produce a conviction only if the prosecution can overcome the presumption that the officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable. This is a function of the entirely spurious, and endlessly destructive, doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which protects police officers from personal liability when their actions result in unjustified harm to the persons or property of innocent people.

Lost Angel: Aiyana.

The rationale behind qualified immunity is the belief that absent such protection competent and talented people wouldn’t enlist as peace officers. In practice, however, qualified immunity merely emboldens incompetent and vicious police officers.

“Police should be subject to exactly the same laws and liabilities that the rest of us face,” contends Brown. “If we don’t have perfect reciprocity, then police should be held to a higher standard of accountability than the rest of the citizenry. If they commit criminal acts that result in injury or death, police should do double the time that a `civilian’ would face, because they’re supposed to be professionals.”

As private sector professionals, Brown observes, “we have double accountability – first to our clients who pay us, and then to the criminal justice system and civil courts if we do something wrong. And because the police usually see us as competitors, they are very eager to come after us if we screw up. But in all the years we’ve been working, we’ve had no deaths or injuries – either to our clients or to our own people – no criminal charges, and no lawsuits.”

Not only do Brown and his associates operate without the benefit of “qualified immunity,” they are required to expose themselves to physical risk on behalf of their clients – something that police are trained to avoid.

“For police officers, going home at the end of the shift is the highest priority,” Brown observes. “For us it can’t be. When we’re hired to protect a client, his home, his business, his family, we’ve made a choice to put the client’s safety above our own, and to make sure that he or she gets home safely at the end of the day.”

When people seek help from the police, Brown points out, they’re inviting intervention by someone who has no enforceable duty to protect them, but will be rewarded for injuring them or needlessly complicating their lives.

“Let’s examine this logically,” Brown begins. “What is this human being – the police officer – going to get out of becoming involved in your troubles? Will be he rewarded for helping you to solve them, especially if this involves a personal risk? Would solving your problem be worth getting injured or killed?”

“We’re dealing with a basic question of human motivations,” Brown continues. “Police are not required to intervene to protect you – there is a very long list of judicial precedents proving this. They’re actually rewarded for not intervening. Here, once again, I emphasize that Threat Management is not comparable to the police. We follow exactly the opposite approach. People don’t have to work with Threat Management, but if they choose to, that’s what we expect of them.”

Some critics of TMC and other private security firms insist that their personnel cannot match the qualifications and experience of government-employed police officers. That objection wildly overestimates the professional standards that must be met in order for an individual to become a government-licensed purveyor of privileged violence.

“An individual can become a police officer in six months,” Brown points out. “Can you become a doctor or an EMT in six months? Is there any other profession in which employees can become `qualified’ to make life-and-death decisions on behalf of other people after just a few months of training?”

By way of supplementing Brown’s point: In Arkansas, an applicant can become a police officer in a day, and work in that capacity for a year, without professional certification of any kind. However, to become a licensed practicing cosmetologist, an applicant must pass a state board examination and complete 2,000 hours of specialized training. For an investment of 600 hours an applicant can qualify to work as a manicurist or instructor.

While Arkansas strictly regulates those who cut hair or paint nails in private, voluntary transactions, it imposes no training or licensing standards whatsoever on armed people who claim the authority to inflict lethal violence on others. This is not to concede that there is any way one human being can become legitimately “qualified” to commit aggressive violence against another.

“Law enforcement attracts a certain personality type that is prone to narcissism and aggression,” Brown asserts, speaking from decades of experience. “People like that get weeded out from our program very early. We protect innocent people from predators, and we can’t carry out that mission by hiring people who are predatory themselves. Our people receive extensive training in firearms and unarmed combat techniques, but they’re also taught to look at all humans as members of the same family. The question we want them to ask themselves is – in what circumstances would you shoot, or otherwise harm a member of your family? They’re trained to apply that standard in all situations involving a potential use of force. People who can’t think that way aren’t going to fit in with our program.”

Brown emphatically agrees that the phenomenon called “police militarization” is a huge and growing menace, but insists that the core problem is “not the military hardware, or the other trappings of militarization, but the system itself. Police agencies attract the wrong kind of people and then tell them, `You’re like God’ – they get to impose their will on others and use lethal force at their discretion. And when someone who is really golden shows up – that is, an ethical, conscientious person who wants to protect the public – they get redirected into a role that will minimize their influence for good by people who are worried about their own job security.”

“Ideally, the best approach would be to abolish the current system and start over,” Brown concludes. “But the very least we should demand would be total equity and complete accountability – which would mean, as a starting point, doing away with this idea of `qualified immunity.’ Police are citizens, and they should be governed by the same laws that apply to all citizens. No exceptions, no special protections.”

Several studies have shown that there are between three and four times as many private peace officers – such as security guards, armored truck drivers, and private investigators – as sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. That fact demonstrates that the security market is completely unserved by government law enforcement agencies. This shouldn’t be surprising, since – as I have observed before – police agencies serve the interests of those who plunder private property, and thus can’t be expected to protect it.

Police personnel practice aggressive violence from the shelter of “qualified immunity.” The absence of such protection doesn’t deter talented, motivated people such as Dale Brown and his associates – and others providing similar services in Houston, Oakland, and elsewhere — from seeking employment as private security officers who actually accept personal risk to protect property.

Why not abolish qualified immunity for all security personnel? Critics of that proposal might protest that this would undermine the state’s monopoly on the provision of “security” by requiring its employees to compete on equal terms with the private sector. Which is precisely the point.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.