a clip of the gentle giant Michael Brown of Ferguson fame.
December 29, 2014
December 23, 2014
Micheal Brown, of Ferguson MO, in action
Filed under: Historical context, Law Enforcement, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: 2nd Amendment, Al Sharpton, civil rights, Government, Jesse Jackson, Michael Brown, News Media, Obama, Politics, Racism, Secession, Socialism, tea party, Welfare — justplainbill @ 4:56 pm
December 10, 2014
Bill Whittle on the Real Race War, from Capt. John [nc]
Filed under: Police, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: democrats, Ferguson MO, legal trends, liberty, New Black Panthers, Obama, Racism, Secession, secular progressives, SEIU, Socialism, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — justplainbill @ 4:45 pm
Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 4:14 AM
By clicking on the below listed link, you will be able to listen to Bill Whittle, as he reveals the truth about the “Real Race War” that has been going on for 6 years. The race riots that erupted in Ferguson, Missouri were instigated by progressive and communist demonstrators who were bussed into Ferguson from New York. The lawless street demonstrations were not spontaneous, they were premeditated, and initiated to inflict chaos, uncertainty, and danger. The Street demonstrations were right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook; and are criminal activities designed to destroy everything in their paths, especially the “truth.”
The organizations and individuals who have been using opposition to the two Grand Jury decisions, to try to dismantle the nations legal cultural foundation and the authority of local police forces, are: the New Black Panther Party, the Weatherman Underground, SIEU, The Communist Party USA, the Black Guerilla Family, Amnesty International, the Congressional Black Caucus, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Valerie Jaret, disciples of Saul Alinsky employed in the Obama administration, and many of George Soros funded leftist & Marxist organizations (“This Stops Today” ,“The Unified Committee For Police Reform”, ”Black Lives Matter“, “Operation Ferguson”. “We Copwatch”, etc.).
One of the goals of the progressives and communists is to employ lawless street demonstrations, similar to those often seen in European civil strife, to overload the local police forces & courts, and to indefinitely continue prolonged racial conflict (the current street demonstrations began in August). The end goal is to drastically change the law and order systems of the Republic, make local police forces less effective, and change the perception of criminal destructive street demonstrations to make them an acceptable political act with no consequences to the demonstrators. The lawless street demonstrations are also providing cover and taking attention away from (1) the illegal release of 16 very dangerous terrorist from Gitmo (Obama has now designated those terrorists refugees), and (2) Obama’s violation of Federal Immigration Laws & the US Constitution when he authorized the issuance of social security numbers and work permits to 5 million illegal aliens.
Ferguson and the Real Race War
This racial divide has been perpetrated for 6 years by the progressives and organizations listed above, and is being coordinated by the Saul Alinsky disciples in the Obama administration. The progressives and communists are not trying to achieve justice by their criminal behavior, they are trying to dismantle the law and order culture of the nation. Although Obama has a unique historic opportunity to defuse the on-going racial strife, as Martin Luther King once did, he does not intend to do so, or he would have condemned the criminal street activities and named the organizations instigating racial strife during a major address to the nation from the Oval Office. It has been reprehensible that Obama has taken sides to further divide the country along racial lines—he and Holder are only criticizing the police and the courts, not the criminal activities in minority neighborhoods where police are called by residents to enter those neighborhoods to quell criminal acts.
Obama and Holder should explain to the minority communities, that their perception of black deaths at the hands of Police Officers are wrong. It is a fact that 99.3% of the 11,000 daily encounters American citizens have with Police Officers are non-fatal encounters—0.7% of all annual arrests by police officers escalate into the requirement to employ of deadly force, often because criminals are attacking Police Officers or physically resisting arrest. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, an average of 1.2 million crimes occur every year, and in the last decade there were 58,261 assaults on Law Enforcement Officers, and since 1791, there have been over 20,000 Law Officers killed in the line of duty. The FBI reported that there were 404 incidents of justifiable homicide by US Law Enforcement Officers last year, 123 of them were with black Americans, out of a population of 43 million blacks, while in the same year blacks killed over 4000 other blacks in their communities. Annually, 150 US Law Enforcement Officers are killed in the line of duty (more than justifiable homicides of blacks).
The focus of the demonstrations has been against two Grand Jury decisions which found two white Police Officer not guilty in the death of two black criminals. The conflicts occurred when two white Police Officers tried to arrest two known black criminals; both men physically resisted arrest in the street. Because both men failed to heed the lawful orders of the Police Officers and physically resisted repeated attempts to arrest them, what could have been a peaceful arrest and the release of both known criminals after they were booked at the police station, the attempted arrests escalated into deadly force encounters with Police Officers.
One black criminal in Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown, was high on drugs, had robbed a convenience store, then roughed up the proprietor of the convenience store, when a Police Officer was dispatched to deal with the robbery brown beat him in his car, then Brown tried to take the Police Officer’s gun, Brown refused to obey repeated lawful orders issued by the Police Officer, Brown then charged the officer a second time, and was shot to death. It was not a racial motivated event; 5 black witnesses stated Brown charged the Police Officer and did not raise both hands as if he were surrendering.
The other criminal, Eric Garner, had 31 previous arrests over a 30 year period. Garner was a very large man who towered over the 5 police officers who were called in by merchants on Staten Island, New York; they wanted the police to stop Garner from selling individual cigarettes outside their stores where the merchants only sold cigarettes by the pack. Garner refused to obey repeated lawful orders by the Police Officers to cease & desist so they could peacefully handcuff him, and Garner physically resisted repeated attempts by the 5 Police Officer’s to arrest him. The standoff escalated into a deadly force incident, when one officer tried to do a take down around Garner’s neck, so he could be finally handcuffed; Garner said he couldn’t breathe and died at the scene. If a Taser had been employed against a very large man, instead of employing a take-down hold, the results of the second arrest might have turned out differently. There has been no proof that the arrest was racially motivated, and Garner’s wife and daughter made public comments to that effect.
In a one way approach to both incidents, Obama and Holder have stated that the police have to be retrained. What they should be saying is that the youth in minority neighborhoods should be made aware that if a Police Officer states he intends to affect an arrest, the place to fight the charge is not in a physical confrontation in the street with the Police Officer, the place to fight what may be viewed as an unwarranted arrest is in the courts with the aid of an public defender. Obama and Holder should be calling for indoctrination of minority youth who lack male supervision in their single family homes. The youth should be informed that injuries and deaths occur between civilians and Police Officers, for the most part, not because Police Officers have a power problem, but because civilians are breaking the law.
Unfortunately, until there is not a balanced approach to the racial conflict, the conflict will not end. Unless Obama and Holder criticize the lawlessness and the high crime in minority neighborhoods, that nervous police officers are forced to enter, when they are called by residents because of shootings/robberies/drug deals/murders/domestic disputes, the racial strife and deadly attacks against whites and police officers will continue. It has been difficult to promote racial healing and harmony while Obama and Holder continue to promote racial division in their continuing attack on Police Officers and Grand Juries. The violent street demonstrations in Ferguson escalated into the firebombing of businesses, torching of automobiles, burning of American Flags, and have resulted into repeated beatings and the murder of innocent white men and women by black assailants.
On December 6th, a 26-year-old white Bosnian woman was dragged out of her car early in the morning by three black thugs brandishing a gun; they broke here windshield with a crow bar, threw her on the ground and kicked her in the same South St Louis neighborhood where, last week, a white Bosnian man, Semir Begic, was bludgeoned to death with hammers by four black assailants. The Bosnian man had stopped his car because it was being repeatedly hit with hammers; when he exited his vehicle to determine why they were damaging his car, he was beaten to death with those hammers by the four black assailants. Police are investigating the attacks as possible hate crimes, because the 26 year old female victim who was beaten on December 6th said the three black assailants beating her asked her if she was also a Bosnian during their attack. In the same vicinity of Ferguson, Seldon Dzananovic, a white man aged 24, was attacked while walking down the street by black teens wilding hammers; he was able to fight them off while running away from them. Also in Ferguson, an elderly white man on his way to his car, was beaten with the oxygen tank he needs to help him breathe, by a black mob, then his car was stolen, and he was run over with his car. .
The “first step” to create havoc in the streets by progressives, in a number of premeditated lawless steps, was to promote continued lawless and prolonged street demonstrations. The “second more dangerous step”, is to spread a number of lies to the demonstrators; that there is an epidemic of Police Officer brutality against blacks, that the flawed justice system in the nation doesn’t protect blacks, and that the US Justice system can’t be trusted or obeyed any longer. This “second step” has been well-orchestrated to destabilize law and order throughout the Republic, and the leaders of the demonstrations are calling for violence against Police Officers. The blatant lie now being promoted by Saul Alinsky progressives in the streets is that Police Officers are now hunting down and killing black men In response, the Black Guerrilla Family is now gunning for off duty police officers in New York; all off duty New York Police Officers have been cautioned to carry their weapons at all times, wear their bullet proof vests, and carry extra magazines for their weapons.
Since August, the Police Force in Ferguson and the Missouri State Police have found it virtually impossible to engage in civil discussions, or explain their crowd control methods to leaders in the minority community. They Police Chief has been refuting claims that Police Officers are trying to kill black men, but Holder continues in flame the situation and has threaten the police force in Ferguson. The progressive leaders led by Al Sharpton do not want to defuse the situation and refuse to tell their followers that the police will support and protect peaceful demonstrations. If there were racial harmony, there would be no need for the power bases of leaders like Farrakhan, Sharpton, Jackson, and other progressives, and there would be no need for their federal funding.
The progressives with the help of the Obama administration, have now moved the conflict to a “third step” in their process of destabilizing law and order in the Republic. The “third step” is to try to rein in local Police Power and effect national control over local police forces, so the nation will only be left with little more than many local police forces, controlled by a central federal police task force. The goal is to change the current tried and true civilian control of local police forces by local elected officials, to instead to be effectively controlled by the federal government. The Obama administration, has begun its campaign to try to eliminate the localized servant-to-the-people-type police departments that currently exist in communities throughout the nation, and will try to have strings attached to the issuance of military surplus equipment, to the funding for body cameras for individual Police Officers, and the federal funding for local police forces. The attempt by Holder to establish specific criteria for local police departments has already begun; Holder has already announced that he intends to prevent local police forces from profiling potential criminals & their activity, he has already announced that local police forces must be re-trained using new restrictive federal standards, and he plans to make it an infraction to detain & turn over illegal aliens to ICE. The strings attached to federal support would require local police forces to submit reports on how they are complying with new federal police standards, in order to continue receive federal funding, and to avoid the risk of being charged by the Justice Department with violating new federal policing standards. Congress must prevent the Obama administration’s proposed policies to take the control of local police forces from taking effect
The release of dangerous terrorist from Gitmo, who will go back to killing US military personnel, have been kept off the front pages of news, because the racial street demonstrations have been kept alive by the left of center liberal media establishment. The fact that Obama employed an unlawful Executive Order to violate Federal Immigration Laws, in order to issue work permits and social security numbers to 5 million illegal aliens is also being kept out of the news by the continuing news coverage of racial street demonstrations. Obama’s Immigration Executive Order will permit 5 million illegally aliens to use their new work permits and social security numbers to obtain drivers licenses. The new drivers licenses will help the illegal aliens perpetuate massive voter fraud, since they will be able to show their drivers licenses and social security numbers in order to illegally register to vote in 2016.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House is still not using the power of the purse to put a stop to the Obama administration’s intent to destabilize law and order in the Republic, to try to make criminal behavior in the streets an acceptable political act, to oppose the violation of Federal Immigration Laws, and to oppose the release of dangerous terrorist from Gitmo? The American citizens who elected the new members of Congress watched today as the Speaker of the House approve a $1.2 trillion budget thru September 2015, that will not even slow down the occupant of the Oval Office from his repeated violations of the US Constitution and Federal Immigration Laws. The Republican leadership could have reined Obama in by only funding the government with a continuing resolution thru February 2015—not the inept current agreement entered into by the Speaker of the House with Senator Reid to fund the government thru September 2015 with a continuing resolution. Providing a continuing resolution thru September 2015 will definitely fund the issuance of Social Security numbers and work permits for 5 million illegal aliens. That is not what the American people just voted for, and they should let their Congressional representatives know it.
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
December 9, 2014
The Economist on Advertising Euphemisms [c]
Filed under: Econonics, Education, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Law Enforcement, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: advertising, affordable care act, Christianity, civil rights, Economics, hillary clinton, History, language abuse, left wing propaganda, liberty, misdirection, Obama, pro-choice, Racism, Secession, Socialism, tea party, Welfare — justplainbill @ 8:14 pm
Johnson: Euphemism
Everyone does it
Dec 5th 2014, 14:26 by R.L.G. | BERLIN
Timekeeper
THE language of marketing usually promises wonderful things: whiter whites, sex appeal, adventure, excitement, a whole new you, just do it, I’m lovin’ it, have it your way, think different… Whether or not a shoe or a tablet computer can really transform our lives, the slogans briefly make us think they can.
But other marketers and advertisers have to be cleverer still—for they sell products inherently connected with unpleasant topics. A colleague and former defence correspondent for The Economist describes a tour of a French arms factory. His guide, showing off a certain item, touted it as “highly efficient in the anti-personnel function”. In other words, very good at killing people.
Many if not most of our products offer not some supplemental happiness, but release from some unpleasantness. The many inconveniences that plague the human body alone keep a large industry of product-makers in profit, and an equally large number of marketing-copy writers busy talking around them.
The ways marketers manage to get their point across without mentioning the unpleasantness in question offer a school of euphemism in miniature. One venerable strategy: speak not of the thing itself, but of a thing near the thing, letting the association do the work. This is how the toilet became the “bathroom” in American English; the “bathroom” at a petrol station will not have a bath, but the one at home does, and that is good enough. In much the same way, products like Danone’s Activia yogurt, are touted as helping “digestion”. Digestion is technically an earlier stage of the process in question. What Activia is really meant to do is better conveyed by the downward arrow on the yogurt’s label.
Feminine products get an extra dose of euphemism. In visual form, this means that those made for absorption are famously shown doing so soaking up pale blue fluid, and women riding horses or doing yoga. In words, it means talking not about the problem, but the desired outcome: “freshness”, “security”, “protection”. One brand, Kotex, decided to parody the typical evasiveness of such mealy-mouthed marketing in an advert—a brilliant idea, until American networks refused to air spots that mentioned where the product would be used. The word vagina was unacceptable on three big American networks, and even “down there”, a wink-wink workaround, was unacceptable for two. The spot is still pretty funny—but loses much of the punch it would have had in the original form.
Kimberly Clark, the makers of Kotex, lamely protested that American networks have no problem mentioning “erectile dysfunction”. But this just highlights another misdirection strategy: the use of long technical words for problems and touchy bits of the body. Johnson looked at how German and other cousin languages to English are shockingly frank about the body—Durchfall, or “fall-through”, is typically blunt; English-speakers, by contrast, resort to Greek for “flow-through”, or diarrhoea. This reflects a centuries-long habit of using the classical languages to guide our gaze away from the grubby reality. The Greco-Latin “Erectile dysfunction” is hardly direct; the word penis is never mentioned, and dysfunction is pretty highfalutin for something that simply isn’t working as it should.
And the technical-looking, Greco-Latin name offers up another avenue. These names are such a mouthful that it is natural to convert them into initialisms and acronyms: the companies that aim to treat it encourage you not to talk about erectile dysfunction, but ED, leading to a fixed catchphrase: “Ask your doctor about ED.” And those advertising to men are just as evasive with another, increasingly common problem, telling men to “ask your doctor about low T”, or low testosterone.
Some of this is just good old psychology: focus on the solution, and don’t dwell on the problem. But in too many other cases, failure even to mention the problem makes the sufferers of life’s ordinary ailments feel abnormal, or even that they should be ashamed. The language of advertising nudges broader social trends, making it hard for friends or parents and children to talk about life’s necessities. In some ways, children’s literature is rather more sensible than advertising for grown-ups: witness the English title of a popular Japanese children’s book, with the frank life lesson that “Everybody Poos”.
[Include words like diversity, multi-cultural, and pro-choice.]
Dick Lamm, former Gov of Colorado (pre-weed) [nc]
Filed under: Business, Econonics, Education, Elections, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Media Check, Political Commentary, Politicians, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: 2nd Amendment, affordable care act, Christianity, civil rights, democrats, Economics, education, Government, harry reid, hillary clinton, History, Islam, Lame Stream Media, legal trends, liberty, Media Watch, Obama, pelosi, Politics, Racism, Secession, Socialism, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — justplainbill @ 7:57 pm
AMERICAN SUICIDE
Isn’t it rather amazing how a past Governor of Colorado can focus and zero
in on a major issue facing this State of California.—and now the U.S.
Wherever you stand on this issue, please take the time to read this; it
should wake you from your slumber on this important truth.
We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his
thoughts are particularly poignant.
Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington,
D.C., filled to capacity with many of America’s finest minds and leaders. A
brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Davis Hansen talked about
his latest book, “Mexifornia”, explaining how immigration – both legal and
illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would
march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American
Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a
stunning speech on how to destroy America.
The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the
destruction of the United States. He said, “If you believe that America is
too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is
not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time.
Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that
‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit
suicide.’â€
“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said.
“FIRST, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual
and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the
tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and
cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it
is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour
Lipset, put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bicultural
societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and
tragedy.’ Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of
national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not
independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an
ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons,
Corsicans and Muslims.”
Lamm went on:
“SECOND, to destroy America, invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage
immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all
cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an
article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely
to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is
out of bounds.”
“THIRD, we could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much
effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin
Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our
own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not
by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated
ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only
tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’ Lamm said, “I would encourage
all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the
melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to
ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing
their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”
“FOURTH, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least
educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated,
and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass
have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”
“My FIFTH point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and
business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic
identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all
minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the
majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure
on the majority placation.”
“My SIXTH plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and
promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would
stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are
mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing
each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most
historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation
together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they
belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature;
and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic
games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these
bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and
geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. “E.
Pluribus Unum” — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the
emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will “Balkanize”
America as surely as Kosovo.
“NEXT TO LAST, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk
about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar
to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed
thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate.
Having made America a bi-lingual/bi-cultural country, having established
multi-culturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of
‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration
laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for
America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant
symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”
In the LAST minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound
silence followed. Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis
Hanson’s book ‘Mexifornia.’ His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to
destroy America If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read
that book.”
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud
above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew
that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly,
darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being
suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our
educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that
practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’
American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a
Third World in America. Take note of California and other states. To date,
ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George
Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the
Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and
“Ignorance is strength.”
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the
conference that our nation, and the future of this great democracy, is
deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration
monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire
and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.
If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass this on
just as I did for you. NOTHING is going to happen if you don’t!
“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a
nation gone under” – Ronald Reagan
December 8, 2014
Muslims force Sikh principal out, push for Sharia in Birmingham, NY Times [nc]
Filed under: Education, Global Intel, Historical context, Islam, Media Check, Political Commentary, Politicians, Religion — Tags: 2nd Amendment, Christianity, civil rights, federal government, Government, History, Islam, liberty, Obama, Politics, Racism, Socialism — justplainbill @ 10:44 pm
A Sikh Principal, Too English for a Largely Muslim School
By KIMIKO DE FREYTAS-TAMURA DEC. 7, 2014
BIRMINGHAM, England — As a Sikh and second-generation Briton running a public school made up mostly of Muslim students, Balwant Bains was at the center of the issues facing multicultural Britain, including the perennial question of balancing religious precepts and cultural identity against assimilation.
But in January, Mr. Bains stepped down as the principal of the Saltley School and Specialist Science College, saying he could no longer do the job in the face of relentless criticism from the Muslim-dominated school board. It had pressed him, unsuccessfully, to replace some courses with Islamic and Arabic studies, segregate girls and boys and drop a citizenship class on tolerance and democracy in Britain.
“I suppose I was a threat, giving these children more British values, for them to be integrated into society,” Mr. Bains said in his first interview since the controversy over his departure.
His experience has helped bring to life the often deeply emotional and highly contentious conflicts unearthed by a British government investigation this year into whether organized groups of conservative Muslims were having undue influence on public schools.
The topic has become especially sensitive at a time when Britain is concerned about the radicalization of young Muslims in the country and their involvement with jihadis in Syria and Iraq. The investigation was prompted by an anonymous letter, sent last year to local officials in Birmingham, alleging an organized Islamic takeover of British schools in Muslim neighborhoods.
Conducted by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, or Ofsted, the inquiry found the allegations to be overstated. But the agency found much that was troubling about Muslim efforts to promote changes in secular public schools, and it has recently widened its investigation to 46 schools across the country.
The investigation found that five schools in Birmingham, including Mr. Bains’s, shared a pattern of behavior similar to what was described in the anonymous letter. The letter also cited Mr. Bains’s impending resignation, a month before it was made official and which only a few knew about, suggesting that the author was someone with detailed knowledge of the schools.
“The Sikh head running a Muslim school,” the letter said, “will soon be sacked and we will move in.”
The investigation found that some teachers and school board governors at the other schools were encouraging homophobia, anti-Semitism and support for Al Qaeda, sometimes inviting speakers who endorsed the establishment of a state run under Sharia law.
One school stopped music and drama lessons as well as Christmas and Diwali celebrations, and subsidized trips to Saudi Arabia for Muslim students.
In another school, the report found, girls and female teachers were discriminated against, and compulsory sex education, including discussions about forced marriage, was banned. Girls and boys seen talking for too long or considered flirtatious were reprimanded, while boys were given worksheets that said a wife had to obey her husband.
The report, released in July, highlighted Mr. Bains’s case and concluded that there had been a “coordinated, deliberate and sustained action, carried out by a number of associated individuals, to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamic ethos into a few schools in Birmingham.”
Muhammad Khan, the chairman of the board of governors at the time, who is no longer at the school, did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Three governors who were also present at meetings with Mr. Bains also refused to comment on his allegations.
Muslim leaders in Britain have condemned the report’s findings, saying it was wrong to conflate conservative Muslim practices with an alleged agenda to Islamicize school systems.
Mr. Bains, 47, was born to Indian immigrants in a suburb of Coventry notorious for prostitution and violent crime. He grew up listening to stories of how his father, a teacher in Punjab State, walked 30 miles each day to and from school. He would study by candlelight because his village had no electricity. After arriving in Britain and securing work as a laborer, he put his son and daughters through college.
“It made me value education more, and because it is free in this country,” Mr. Bains said. “I lifted myself out of poverty because of education. If I could do it, if I could break the cycle, other children could, too.”
His background, he said, is that “I’m an inclusionist.”
He added that he saw his role as being to “educate children to live and function in a multicultural Britain, to be appreciative of the views of other people, but also to express themselves.”
In 2012, he became head teacher of Saltley, a school where grades were falling behind the national average. In spite of his ordeal throughout 2013, the school achieved its best General Certificate of Secondary Education grades ever — roughly equivalent to the high school diploma in America. Britain’s school inspectorate judged the school as one of the most improved state schools that year.
“But I never got a single congratulation” from the school’s governing board, a mix of elected parents and other people from the community and members appointed to represent the staff and the local government, Mr. Bains said. “It was emotional harassment.”
The chairman of the governing board took to challenging his day-to-day decision making, Mr. Bains said. In one instance he was required to justify every decision he made during a three-month period, Mr. Bains said, including why he had students walk on the right side of the corridor instead of the left, what he said at assemblies and why he made changes to the school website. He had to print and distribute the resulting 300-page document to each of the 15 members of the governing board.
When a student threatened six classmates with a knife, he expelled the boy, a Muslim, in a decision supported by parents and the local authority. But governors reinstated the boy. Because Mr. Bains did not suspend another student, a white boy who had surrendered the weapon, talk spread among staff that he was racist and Islamophobic. He discovered a Facebook post and text messages calling on parents and students to protest against him, he said, and later learned that the message had even been circulated among local mosques.
“Some of the children would come in and tell me, ‘Mr. Bains, they’re going to egg your car today, so you better move your car,’ ” he said. “I felt very isolated, I was despondent. I was a head teacher going into work without any power.”
The treatment, he said, lasted 11 months, beginning just two months after he was appointed head teacher, until he resigned.
By then, all non-Muslim governors except one at his school had left. He was immediately replaced by a friend of the chairman of the board of governors. A number of staff members at other schools cited in the government investigation also resigned because they disagreed with the attitudes taken by some administrators. They also claimed that teachers had been appointed based on their religious zeal, not their teaching qualifications.
The government report partly vindicated him, Mr. Bains said. But if nothing changes, he said, “then it means anyone can just go in and destroy a school and get away with it.”
A version of this article appears in print on December 8, 2014, on page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: British Principal Who Resigned Believes He Was Seen as a Threat.
The Economist Explains Grand Juries [nc]
Filed under: Education, Historical context, Law Enforcement, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: 2nd Amendment, civil rights, democrats, federal government, Freedom, harry reid, hillary clinton, History, liberty, Obama, pelosi, Politics, Racism, Secession, Socialism, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — justplainbill @ 9:37 pm
The Economist explains
Explaining the world, daily
Sponsored by GE Logo
Previous
Next
Latest The Economist explains
All latest updates
The Economist explains
How a grand jury works
Dec 7th 2014, 23:50 by R.W.
Timekeeper
ON DECEMBER 3rd a grand jury in New York decided not to indict a white police officer who choked and killed an unarmed black man. Protest marches were quickly organised across America. The decision followed on from another grand-jury decision not to indict a white police officer for killing Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri. In that case, the officer claimed self defence and no video footage existed to show what had happened. But bystanders filmed the death of Eric Garner, the man in New York. The chokehold manoeuvre that was used has been banned by the NYPD since 1993. Several officers were at the scene; at no point was there a suggestion that they were in danger from Mr Garner. All this makes the decision by the grand jury not to indict the policeman particularly baffling. What is a grand jury, and how does it work?
America is one of the few countries to use grand juries. The Fifth Amendment requires that the federal legal system uses grand juries for all capital and “infamous” crimes. Grand juries are meant to weed out ill-conceived prosecutions and are particularly useful in cases of terrorism, public corruption and organised crime. Most Americans know little about the process, as the proceedings are not open to the public or to the media. Such secrecy is meant to ensure that investigations are free from outside influences and that witnesses are more forthcoming. State rules are different: only around half of the states use grand juries. And practices can vary widely. The size of a grand jury, for example, differs from place to place: in Missouri, it was made up of 12 people. In New York some 23 people sat on the jury.
In an ordinary trial there are two attorneys (one for each side), a presiding judge and a jury of 12 people who must convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Grand juries have an easier job. All they decide is if there is enough evidence to bring a case to trial—they do not determine whether or not someone is guilty or innocent. Unlike in ordinary trials no judge oversees a grand jury. Instead the presiding officer is the prosecuting attorney, who also instructs the jury on the law. This means that the prosecuting lawyer has a lot of sway. In 1985 Sol Wachtler, a former chief judge in New York, told the New York Daily News that “district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that ‘by and large’ they could get them to indict a ham sandwich.” Nearly three decades on it is still rare for a grand jury not to return an indictment. According to one calculation, federal attorneys brought 162,000 cases before federal grand juries in 2010. Only 11 did not result in an indictment.
Police officers are rarely charged for on-duty homicides. In 2011 the Department of Justice found that the police, who are often responding to the threat of violence, kill roughly one person every day. But between 2005 and 2011, only 41 officers were charged with murder or manslaughter for on-duty shootings, according to research by Philip Stinson of Bowling Green State University. Even so it seems shocking that the video of the police officer using the deadly chokehold was not enough to warrant an indictment. One theory as to why the officer was not indicted is that local prosecutors work closely with the local police and prefer to remain on good terms with them. This means grand juries are more likely to trust the police, too. Some people are now calling for special prosecutors to preside over grand juries in cases against police officers. Others are calling for the complete elimination of the whole grand-jury system.
Dig deeper:
Police departments would do well to look at Camden, New Jersey (Dec 2014)
Race is America’s deepest problem (Nov 2014)
How America’s police became so well armed (Aug 2014)
White Police killed by Black Perps, by Joseph John [nc]
Filed under: Global Intel, Historical context, Law Enforcement, Media Check, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: 2nd Amendment, civil rights, democrats, Economics, Freedom, harry reid, History, Islam, legal trends, liberty, Media Watch, Obama, pelosi, Politics, Racism, Secession, Socialism, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — justplainbill @ 7:36 pm
Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Dec 5 at 3:43 AM
The below listed E-mail is from a retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer, who I once served with. His E-mail outlines how, over a 60 day period this past summer, 4 white Police Officers were murdered by black criminal assailants. Those 4 Police Officers were murdered while trying to enforce the law, like Police officers throughout the nation do daily, at the risk to their lives. The report of the Police Officer murders was obtained from the San Diego Police Department News Group.
Where was Obama, Holder, Al Sharpton, Jesses Jackson, and Farrakhan when those 4 white Police Officers were murdered by black criminals—did they wring their hands, instigate national street demonstrations that are dividing the races, and are they going to insist on 4 federal civil rights investigation by the Justice Department to determine if the civil rights of the 4 white Police Officers were violated by the black criminals? Many other white Police Officers, who enforce the law daily at a risk to their lives, have been murdered since July 2014.
The repeated public comments by Holder and Obama about a criminal, Michael Brown, continues to foment racial strife.. Brown weighed 325 pounds, was high on drugs, robbed a convenience store, manhandled the owner of the convenience store, refused to follow the orders of a Police Officer who was dispatched to investigate the convenience store robbery. Brown then beat the police officer in his own police car while Brown was trying to take the Police Officer’s gun away. After the attack on the Police Officer, Brown refused to halt as ordered by the Police Officer. Instead of halting, Brown turned and tried to attack the Police Officer for a second time. According to the testimony of 5 black witnesses, Brown was charging the Police Officer like a football player, when he was shot in self-defense. A Grand Jury impaneled long before the shooting of Brown occurred, with 3 black members, found Brown’s shooting to be an authorized shooting.
Obama and Holder public comments have resulted in street demonstration, the torching of stores, and the firebombing of many cars which is perpetrating racial divides (Over the past 6 + years, Obama and Holder’s public comments have aggravated and perpetuated racial strife). Holder announced to the nation that he has ordered the Justice Department to conduct a federal civil rights investigation to determine if a criminal high on drugs, who robbed a convenience store, who beat a Police Officer, then tried to disarm the Police Officer, and then tried to charge the Police Officer a second time, had his civil rights violated by the Police Officer.
Holder and Obama have it wrong, the civil rights of a white Police Officer was being violated by a black criminal who attacked him, beat him, tried to disarm him, and was trying to attack him for a second time. Holder and Obama continue to ignore the repeated murders of white Police Officers by black criminals, and charge that there are too many unauthorized shootings of blacks by Police Officers—which is not true.
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: OFFICER GARY R RICKERT (Ret)
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 8:34 PM
To: Joseph R. John
Subject: THE KILLING OF POLICE OFFICERS
Does anyone remember Detective Melvin Santiago? He was a Jersey City police officer who was shot to death just a month ago, on July 13th. Santiago was white. His killer, Lawrence Campbell, was black. Does anyone recall Obama appearing before national television and calling for justice for Officer Santiagos family? Does anyone recall Eric Holder rushing to Jersey City to see that justice was done?
How about Officer Jeffrey Westerfield? He was a Gary, Indiana police officer who was shot to death on July 6, 2014. Officer Westerfield was white, his killer, Carl LeEllis Blount, Jr. was black. where was Obama? Where was Holder?
Officer Perry Renn was an Indianapolis, Indiana police officer who was shot to death July 5, 2014, the day before Officer Westerfield was killed. Officer Renn was white. His killer, Major Davis, was black. I don’t recall any mention by Obama about the untimely death of Officer Renn. and, I doubt that Eric Holder rushed to Indianapolis to make sure justice was served.
Vermillion Parish Deputy Sheriff Allen Bares was gunned down by two men June 23, 2014 in Louisiana. Deputy Bares was white. His two killers, Quintlan Richard and Baylon Taylor were black. Was Obama outraged? Did Eric Holder rush to Louisiana to make sure that the family of Deputy Bares found justice?
Detective Charles Dinwiddie of the Killen, Texas Police Department was murdered on May 11, 2014 by Marvin Lewis Guy, a black male. Officer Dinwiddie was white. Do you recall seeing anything about that on the news? Certainly, the white citizens of Killeen didn’t take to the streets to loot and burn businesses. Do you recall any mention of Obama or Holder here?
Then, there is Officer Kevin Jordan of Griffin, Georgia Police Department. He was gunned down on May 31, 2014. Officer Jordan was black, his killer, Michael Bowman was white. This was a white man murdering a black police officer. Where was Jesse Jackson? Where was “The Reverend” Al Sharpton? Was there looting and burning on the streets of Griffin, Georgia? No, in fact, we don’t recall hearing about this one in the news as well. Why? You can draw your own conclusions.
Over that 60 day period, there have been five reported deaths of police officers by gunshot in the U.S. Of those, four were white officers who were murdered by black men. Blacks complain that white officers treat black men more aggressively on the street. You can draw your own conclusions on that one, as well.
This is what the Dems think of the Red States, from the Daily Beast [c]
Filed under: Business, Econonics, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Law Enforcement, Media Check, Political Commentary, Politicians, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: civil rights, democrats, Freedom, Government, hillary clinton, History, legal trends, liberty, Obama, pelosi, Politics, Secession, Socialism, us constitution, Welfare — justplainbill @ 6:19 pm
Lost Cause
12.08.14
Dems, It’s Time to Dump Dixie
With Mary Landrieu’s ignominious exit, the Democrats will have lost their last senator in the Deep South. And that’s a good thing. They should write it off—because they don’t need it.
I don’t remember a much sadder sight in domestic politics in my lifetime than that of Mary Landrieu schlumpfing around these last few weeks trying to save a Senate seat that was obviously lost. It was like witnessing the last two weeks of the life of a blind and toothless dog you knew the vet was just itching to destroy. I know that sounds mean about her, but I don’t intend it that way. She did what she could and had, as far as I know, an honorable career. I do, however, intend it to sound mean about the reactionary, prejudice-infested place she comes from. A toothless dog is a figure of sympathy. A vet who takes pleasure in gassing it is not.
And that is what Louisiana, and almost the entire South, has become. The victims of the particular form of euthanasia it enforces with such glee are tolerance, compassion, civic decency, trans-racial community, the crucial secular values on which this country was founded… I could keep this list going. But I think you get the idea. Practically the whole region has rejected nearly everything that’s good about this country and has become just one big nuclear waste site of choleric, and extremely racialized, resentment. A fact made even sadder because on the whole they’re such nice people! (I truly mean that.)
With Landrieu’s departure, the Democrats will have no more senators from the Deep South, and I say good. Forget about it. Forget about the whole fetid place. Write it off. Let the GOP have it and run it and turn it into Free-Market Jesus Paradise. The Democrats don’t need it anyway.
Actually, that’s not quite true. They need Florida, arguably, at least in Electoral College terms. Although they don’t even really quite need it—what happened in 2012 was representative: Barack Obama didn’t need Florida, but its 29 electoral votes provided a nice layer of icing on the cake, bumping him up to a gaudy 332 EVs, and besides, it’s nice to be able to say you won such a big state. But Florida is kind of an outlier, because culturally, only the northern half of Florida is Dixie. Ditto Virginia, but in reverse; culturally, northern Virginia is Yankee land (but with gun shops).
So Democrats still need to care about those two states, at least in presidential terms. And maybe you can throw in North Carolina under the right circumstances. And at some point in the near future, you’ll be able to talk about Georgia as a state a Democrat can capture. And eventually, Texas, too.
But that’s presidential politics. At the congressional level, and from there on down, the Democrats should just forget about the place. They should make no effort, except under extraordinary circumstances, to field competitive candidates. The national committees shouldn’t spend a red cent down there. This means every Senate seat will be Republican, and 80 percent of the House seats will be, too. The Democrats will retain their hold on the majority-black districts, and they’ll occasionally be competitive in a small number of other districts in cities and college towns. But they’re not going win Southern seats (I include here with some sadness my native West Virginia, which was not a Southern state when I was growing up but culturally is one now). And they shouldn’t try.
My friend the political scientist Tom Schaller said all this back in 2008, in his book Whistling Past Dixie. I didn’t want to agree with Schaller then, but now I throw in the towel. He was a man ahead of his time. Look west, Schaller advised the Democrats. And he was right. Now it’s true that many states in the nation’s heartland aren’t winnable for Democrats, either. Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah will never come anywhere close to being purple. But Colorado already is. Arizona can be. Missouri, it’s not crazy to think so. And Montana and South Dakota are basically red, of course, but are both elect Democrats sometimes. (Did you know that both of Montana’s senators right now are Democrats?!) In sum, between the solid-blue states in the North and on the West Coast, and the pockets of opportunity that exist in the states just mentioned (and tossing in the black Southern seats), the Democrats can cobble together congressional majorities in both houses, under the right circumstances.
The main point is this: Trying to win Southern seats is not worth the ideological cost for Democrats.
But it’s not just a question of numbers. The main point is this: Trying to win Southern seats is not worth the ideological cost for Democrats. As Memphis Rep. Steve Cohen recently told my colleague Ben Jacobs, the Democratic Party cannot (and I’d say should not) try to calibrate its positions to placate Southern mores: “It’s come to pass, and really a lot of white Southerners vote on gays and guns and God, and we’re not going to ever be too good on gays and guns and God.”
Cohen thinks maybe some economic populism could work, and that could be true in limited circumstances. But I think even that is out the window now. In the old days, drenched in racism as the South was, it was economically populist. Glass and Steagall, those eponymous bank regulators, were both Southern members of Congress. But today, as we learned in Sunday’s Times, state attorneys general, many in the South, are colluding with energy companies to fight federal regulation of energy plants.
It’s lost. It’s gone. A different country. And maybe someday it really should be. I’ll save that for another column. Until that day comes, the Democratic Party shouldn’t bother trying. If they get no votes from the region, they will in turn owe it nothing, and in time the South, which is the biggest welfare moocher in the world in terms of the largesse it gets from the more advanced and innovative states, will be on its own, which is what Southerners always say they want anyway.
[SECESSION, THIS IS WHAT THE LEFT THINKS OF THE RED STATES. SECESSION IS THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP AMERICAN VALUES. SECESSION.]
December 1, 2014
Witness 10, The Washington Post [see prior comment on the law] Michael Brown/Ferguson MO
Filed under: Historical context, Law Enforcement, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: 2nd Amendment, blacks, civil rights, Darren Wilson, deadly force, democrats, dept of justice, Economics, Ferguson MO, Freedom, hillary clinton, History, holder, Justice, Law, legal trends, liberty, Michael Brown, News Media, Obama, Politics, Racism, Secession, Socialism, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — justplainbill @ 8:05 pm
Witness 10 proves Darren Wilson had a reasonable belief he needed to shoot Michael Brown
By Paul Cassell December 1 at 2:57 AM
Missouri law allows a person to use deadly force defending himself when he has a “reasonable belief” he needs to use deadly force. The law goes on to define a reasonable belief as one based on “grounds that could lead a reasonable person in the same situation to the same belief.” Unsurprisingly, Officer Darren Wilson testified to the grand jury that he reasonably believed he needed to use deadly force to defend himself against Michael Brown. But the clinching argument on this point is that other reasonable people — i.e., some credible eyewitnesses — agreed with Wilson.
In previous posts, I have discussed how the grand jury process was fair, how Officer Wilson’s testimony covered the bases of Missouri self-defense law, and how the physical evidence bolstered his credibility. In this post, I turn to eyewitness testimony — which the Post has helpfully collected in this story. It would be difficult to discuss in detail the testimony of all of several dozen eyewitnesses. But a defendant raising self-defense need not show that his interpretation was the only one; rather he need only show that it was a reasonable one — i.e., a conclusion a reasonable person could reach based on all the facts.
Against that backdrop, I want to review in detail the testimony of one seemingly reasonable and neutral observer — Witness Number 10. If his objective assessment was that Officer Wilson acted appropriately, that would be strong evidence demonstrating Wilson’s belief was reasonable.
Witness 10 told the grand jury that he was outside while working a job on Canfield Drive when two men (later identified as Mike Brown and Dorion Johnson) walked by him. He then was able to see the events in question with a direct line of sight. Witness 10 saw the struggle in Wilson’s police car — with Brown confronting Wilson inside the car:
I just see Mr. Brown inside the police officer’s window. It appeared as [though] some sort of confrontation was taking place. . . . [T]hat took place for seconds, I’m not sure how long. . . . And one shot, the first shot was let loose and after the first shot, Mike Brown came out of the window and took off running. So my initial thought was that wow, did I just witness this young guy kill a police officer (grand jury testimony, Vol. 6, page 165, line 23, hereafter cited by just page and line number).
Witness 10 elaborated about Brown’s position: “Half of his body, his feet was still planted on the ground, his upper body was inside the window in a leaning motion inside the window, his upper body was inside” (169:21). And while the witness could not hear what was being said inside the car, “it just looked out of the norm with somebody being leaned over inside the police officer’s car” (171:15). Witness 10 then explained that, after the firing of a shot, Michael Brown and his friend took off down Canfield Drive. Officer Wilson remained in his car briefly, and then pursued with his gun drawn — but not firing at Brown (177:15). Eventually Brown stopped.
Games – Click Here for More!
According to Witness 10, Brown then turned and ran “full charge” toward Wilson:
He [Mike Brown] stopped. He did turn, he did some sort of body gesture, I’m not sure what it was, but I know it was a body gesture. And I could say for sure he never put his hands up after he did his body gesture, he ran towards the officer full charge. The officer fired several shots at him and to give an estimate, I would say roughly around five to six shots was fired at Mike Brown. Mike Brown was still coming towards the office and at this point I’m thinking, wow, is this officer missing Mike Brown at this close of a range. Mike Brown continuously came forward in the charging motion and at some point, at one point he started to slow down and he came to a stop. And when he stopped, that’s when the officer ceased fire and when he ceased fire[], Mike Brown started to charge once more at him. When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say, give an estimate of three to four shots. And that’s when Mike Brown finally collapsed . . . . (166:21-167:18).
With regard to the body gesture, Witness 10 explained: “All I know is it was not in a surrendering motion of I’m surrendering, putting my hands up or anything, I’m not sure. If it was like a shoulder shrug or him pulling his pants up, I’m not sure. I really don’t want to speculate [about] things . . . .” (180:5). But “[i]mmediately after he [Brown] did his body gesture, he comes for force, full charge at the officer” (180:16). Ultimately, in the view of Witness 10, the officer’s life was in jeopardy when Brown charged him from close range (206:4).
Under Missouri law, this testimony by itself (even apart from any other evidence) would have provided a sound basis for the grand jury to decline to return any charges against Wilson. A Missouri appellate decision approves the following jury instruction allowing deadly force when supported by a “reasonable belief” in the need to use such force:
In order for a person lawfully to use force in self-defense, he must reasonably believe he is in imminent danger of harm from the other person. He need not be in actual danger but he must have a reasonable belief that he is in such danger. . . . But a person is not permitted to use deadly force, that is, force that he knows will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury, unless he reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. And, even then, a person may use deadly force only if he reasonably believes the use of such force is necessary to protect himself.
Of particular importance for this post, Missouri law defines a “reasonable belief” as one that would be held by a reasonable person knowing the same facts:
As used in this instruction, the term “reasonable belief” means a belief based on reasonable grounds, that is, grounds that could lead a reasonable person in the same situation to the same belief. This depends upon how the facts reasonably appeared. It does not depend upon whether the belief turned out to be true or false.
Witness 10 was a neutral observer who saw all the same things that Officer Wilson saw (albeit from a safe distance). He concluded that Wilson’s life was in jeopardy. This would seem to be very strong evidence that a reasonable person could reasonably conclude that deadly force was required to protect against 300-pound Mike Brown’s “full on charge.”
Moreover, Witness 10′s version of the facts is quite credible. Witness 10 saw a “confrontation” and Mike Brown’s DNA was later found inside the car. Indeed, witness 10 was afraid that Brown might have killed the police officer inside the car when he heard the firing of a single shot. (The ballistics evidence shows two shots were fired at the car, so that is a point of difference.) Witness 10 then describes Wilson pursuing Brown but not firing any shots along the way. Here again, the ballistics tracks this testimony.
November 26, 2014
The Legalities of Shooting People, by Correia [nc]
Filed under: Education, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Law Enforcement, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: 2nd Amendment, anarchy, civil rights, common sense, concealed carry, democrats, Ferguson, firearms, grand juries, guns, History, Law, liberty, looters, Michael Brown, News Media, Obama, Politics, Racism, riots, Socialism, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — justplainbill @ 3:56 pm
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/11/25/the-legalities-of-shooting-people/
The Legalities of Shooting People
Posted on November 25, 2014 by correia45
I’m writing this blog post because I’ve seen a lot of really ignorant comments from a lot of otherwise intelligent folks about some recent shootings. It is really easy to be swayed by knee jerk emotion, but luckily we live in America, where we have a justice system based on evidence and the rule of law. I’m not going to get into the Brown shooting too much because I wasn’t on the grand jury and haven’t read the evidence presented in that particular case, but I’m going to explain how use of force laws work so I don’t have to keep repeating myself.
This will vary state by state, but these are the fundamentals for most places in the US. There are some legal differences between police and regular folks shooting people, but basically the rules are similar. I’m not an attorney in your state, and this is not meant as legal advice for your state. Again, this isn’t meant as legal advice, rather as a primer to get people to not be so damned ignorant about the fundamentals of how the law works.
And the law usually does work.
I’m going to keep this simple. Before I became a novelist, I was a Utah Concealed Weapons instructor for many years. I’m condensing a few hours of lecture and discussion into one article. Again, this will vary state by state.
First off we must understand some terms.
Lethal Force is exercising an action against someone which may potentially take their life. If you shoot somebody and they don’t die, you still exercised Lethal Force. If you shoot somebody in the leg or arm, legally that is still Lethal Force, and contrary to the movies, you can still die if get shot in the arm or the leg (but we train to shoot for center of mass, more on why later).
Serious Bodily Harm (often called Grievous Bodily Harm) is any injury that is potentially life altering or life threatening. Rape is serious bodily harm. A beating is serious bodily harm. Anything that may render you unconscious is serious bodily harm.
Reasonable Man – I will often refer to this. The question isn’t whether the shooter perceives themselves to be justified, but whether a “reasonable man” would perceive you to be justified. Contrary to popular opinion, you can’t just say “he was coming right at me!” and be justified in shooting somebody. The evidence will be examined and the question will be if you made the assumptions a reasonable man would make, and acted in a manner which seems reasonable based on that evidence. This is where the jury comes in, because they are a group of reasonable people who are going to look at your actions and your situation and make a call. Basically, do your actions make sense to them? Would they believe similar things in the same situation?
To be legally justified in using lethal force against somebody you need to meet the following criteria.
1. They have the Ability to cause you serious bodily harm.
2. They have the Opportunity to cause you serious bodily harm.
3. They are acting in a manner which suggests they are an Immediate Threat of serious bodily harm.
If your encounter fits these three criteria, then you are usually legally justified in using lethal force.
Let’s break each one down a bit.
Ability just means that they have the power to hurt you. A gun or a knife can obviously cause serious bodily harm. However, a person does not need a weapon to seriously hurt you. Any blow to the head sufficient to render you unconscious or cause internal bleeding is sufficient to kill you.
Opportunity means that they can reach you with their ability. A hundred yards away with a gun, they can still hit you, so they have the opportunity. A hundred yards away with a knife, pipe, or chain, and they aren’t a danger to you. However, thirty feet away with a contact weapon is easily within range to cause most people serious bodily harm before they are capable of using a firearm to neutralize the threat. I’ll talk more about distances later.
Immediacy (often called Jeopardy) means that they are acting in a manner that suggests they intend to cause serious bodily harm right now. Somebody can have the ability and opportunity, but if a reasonable person wouldn’t believe that they are acting like a threat, then they aren’t one.
###
Now let’s break this down in more depth.
Under Ability you will see self-defense experts refer to Disparity of Force, this is where there is such a physical disparity between two individuals that Ability is assumed. I’m 6’5, 300, and I’ve rendered people unconscious with my bare hands. If I’m unarmed, but I am attacking an average sized person, and they shoot me, then a reasonable person could assume that there was a disparity of force, and they were justified in shooting me. Usually when a man attacks a woman, or a fit strong young person attacks a frail old person, then disparity of force is assumed.
However, you don’t have to be bigger or stronger (it only helps convince the reasonable people you are justified). Regardless of size, if you knock someone down and are sitting on them and raining blows on their head, then you are demonstrating the ability to cause them serious bodily harm. A small woman could brain a big strong man over the head with a rock and proceed to beat them, thus demonstrating ability.
A person doesn’t need to even demonstrate that he’s got the ability, he just needs to act in a manner that would suggest to a reasonable person that he did. If you tell somebody, “Give me your purse or I’ll shoot you,” but you don’t show them your gun, a reasonable person would assume that you wouldn’t make that threat if you didn’t have the ability. You don’t need to wait to see the muzzle flash to confirm their gun is real. That’s suicidal.
On the distance someone can reasonably be a threat with just a contact weapon, you’d be surprised. It is easy to underestimate how much distance a human being can cover in a very short period of time. During my classes I used a series of role playing scenarios to demonstrate various issues and test the shoot/no shoot decision making process. While playing an aggressor I routinely covered in excess of twenty feet and caused serious bodily harm before most students could even draw their gun, let alone aim.
Gun people have all heard of the Tueller drill, which demonstrated that the average person could cover about 21 feet before the average police officer could draw and fire a shot (and as we’ll see later, one shot doesn’t often mean much, assuming it hits something vital). That’s average. Basically, without going into a whole lot of detail, the reasonable people are usually stunned to learn how much distance can be covered to provide opportunity.
The last one is the most complicated. Say a man with a gun has Ability and Opportunity, but if he is just minding his own business with the gun in the holster, slung, or being carried in a non-threatening manner then he’s not acting as an immediate threat. But if he is acting like he is going to use it or waving it around, now he is acting like an immediate threat. Again, it all comes down to how a reasonable person would perceive it.
This is why it is silly when anti-gun people start ranting about how they’re justified in harming people who are openly carrying firearms on their person. Nope. #3, unless they’re acting in a manner that suggests they’re an immediate threat, then they’re fine. Otherwise it would be legally justifiable to shoot everybody like me that shops at the Xtra Large Casual Male outlet because of disparity of force. You can’t just have Ability or Opportunity, they must be acting in a manner which a reasonable person would take to be a threat.
You’ve got to have all three.
In most states these rules apply to yourself or a third person being the potential recipient of serious bodily harm, however I believe there are still some states where it is only for you, and not a bystander. Some states suck.
You’ll hear people talking (usually ignorantly) about Castle Doctrine or Duty to Retreat. Some states require you to try and flee before exercising Lethal Force, and it allows the prosecution to question your inability to flee. Some states require you to flee your own home. Most states don’t have that.
Not that escaping or avoiding isn’t a great idea if given the opportunity, but it sucks to have a prosecutor second guessing your running ability.
###
Violent encounters are a triangle. There are three aspects to every violent encounter, the legal side (the decisions that keep you out of jail), the tactical side (the decisions that keep you alive), and the moral side (the decisions that let you sleep at night). These don’t always all match up neatly. There are times when you can be totally legally justified but tactically stupid.
Say somebody breaks into your house. Before you’ve even seen them you can make some assumptions, they came into your house while you are home, they probably wouldn’t do that if they didn’t have the ability, now they’ve certainly got the opportunity, and their presence is an immediate threat. So you’re legally justified, however you still need to identify the target before firing to make sure that it is actually a threat, and not some mistaken identity shooting, your drunk teenager, or the neighbors autistic kid.
I worked primarily with regular folks, and a little with the police. Their triangle is different. There are situations where a permit holder might be legally justified in getting involved, but tactically they are probably going to get killed, so their best bet is to run away. In fact, in most scenarios avoidance is the best answer, and in the vast majority of real life violent encounters involving a permit holder, no shots are fired, because simply producing the gun is enough to deter the attacker.
One thing the permit holders I taught needed to get through their heads was that they weren’t cops. Their permit was simply a license to carry a concealed firearm in order to defend themselves from violence. Luckily the vast majority of permit holders get that.
###
Cops on the other hand are expected to respond to violent people and apprehend them. As a result police have what is known as the Use of Force Pyramid. That means that they are to respond with the lowest amount of force necessary to stop any given situation. That is why they are expected to use tasers or pepper spray before they use physical force or guns. Their goal is to stop the situation, and they’ll try to respond with one level more force than the person they’re trying to stop. However, and this is a BIG damned however, just like the rules for regular people above, if they are in immediate danger of serious bodily harm, then they are justified in using lethal force.
Tasers and pepper spray are not magic. Most people’s understanding of these tools comes from TV and TV isn’t reality. Tasers don’t knock you unconscious. They stream electricity through your body which causes your muscles to lock up for a moment, and if the circuit ends (the tiny wires break or the barbs fall out) then you are back to normal and it is game on. (and I’m talking about air tasers, the little stun guns or “drive tasers” are useless toys. They feel like being pinched with a red hot pair of pliers, which sucks, but if you’re tough enough you can play tag with the damned things). Pepper spray hurts and makes it hard to see and breathe, but you can build up a resistance to it (ask anybody in prison) and it can also bounce back on the user. In reality these tools work sometimes and sometimes they don’t. You’ll note that when you see cops dealing with actual violent types and they use the less lethal tools, there is usually cop #2 standing there with a real gun in case Plan A doesn’t work.
Then there is going hands on, “pain compliance techniques” (arm bars, wrist locks, and wrestling until you say enough of this crap and let them put the cuffs on) but like anything in life that requires physical force one human being to another, these things are dangerous too, and bad things might happen. Bones break, arteries are cut off, people get hurt, sometimes they die.
But the cops are going to try to respond to their subject a level above what the subject is using, until they surrender or comply. Which means that if they think you are going to lethal force, they are going to go to lethal force, and the time it takes to switch gears is measured in fractions of a second.
When a cop shoots somebody, depending on the state, it now goes before whatever they use for Reasonable People.
If you try to wrestle away a cop’s gun, that demonstrates Ability, Opportunity, and Immediacy, because right after you get ahold of that firearm, the reasonable assumption is going to be that you’re intending to use it. If you fight a cop, and he thinks you’re going to lethal force, he’s going to repeatedly place bullets into your center of mass until you quit.
Everybody who carries a gun, whether they be police or not, are trained to shoot for the middle of the largest available target, which is normally the center of mass, and to do so repeatedly until the threat stops. Contrary to the movies, pistols aren’t death rays. A pistol bullet simply pokes a hole. Usually when somebody is stopped by being shot it is A. Psychological (as in holy crap! I’m shot! That hurt! I surrender), but if they keep going it is until B. Physiological (as in a drop in blood pressure sufficient for them to cease hostilities) If that hole poked is in a vital organ, then the attacker will stop faster. If it isn’t in a vital organ, they will stop slower. Pistols do not pick people up, nor do they throw people back. Pistol bullets are usually insufficiently powerful to break significant bones.
Shooting people who are actively trying to harm you while under pressure is actually very hard, which is why people often miss. This is why you aim for the biggest available target and continue shooting until they stop doing whatever it is that caused you to shoot them in the first place.
You’ll hear ignorant people say “why didn’t you just shoot them in the arm/leg?” That is foolishness. Legally and tactically, they’re both still lethal force. Only if they bleed to death in a minute because you severed their femoral artery, they’re not any less dead, only they had one more minute to continue trying to murder you. Basically limb hits are difficult to pull off with the added bonus of being terribly unreliable stoppers.
##
In a fatal shooting you’ll often hear someone say “there was only one side to the story told.” That is false
.
In the aftermath of any shooting, whether it is police or the general public, there is going to be an investigation. There will be evidence gathered. There will be witnesses. There will be an autopsy. There is always multiple sides to any shooting, even if it is just the autopsy results.
Contrary to the media narrative, most police officers don’t want to shoot anyone, regardless of their skin color. Those of us who carry guns don’t want to shoot anybody. One big reason is that because after we had to make that awful shoot/no-shoot decision in a terrifying fraction of a second, then hundreds of people are going to spend thousands of man hours gathering evidence, then they are going to argue about our actions, analyze our every move, guess at our thoughts, and debate whether we were reasonable or not, all from the comfort of an air conditioned room, and if they get hungry, they’ll order pizza. When all is said and done, these people will have a million times longer to decide if what you did in those seconds was justified or not. No pressure.
Each state is different, but if there is any question as to the justification of the shooting, there is usually some form of grand jury, and if there is sufficient question or evidence of wrong doing, then the shooter will be indicted.
Now, an argument can be made as to how shootings—especially those committed by law enforcement officers who are expected to exercise a higher standard of care—should be investigated. However, no matter how the shooting is investigated, it should be done through our constitutional protections and our agreed upon legal system. No one should ever be convicted through the court of public opinion or the media.
In ten years of studying violent encounters and learning everything I could about every shooting I could, I never once found a newspaper article that got all the facts right. Usually they weren’t even close. In that same time period I offered free training in Use of Force to reporters or detractors, and never once had any of them take me up on it.
You may believe that grand juries are too soft on police involved shootings. That may be a valid argument. You may believe that prosecutors are too lenient on police officers because they both work for the government and there is an existing relationship between the prosecutors and the police. That may be a valid argument. Burning down Little Ceasers isn’t the answer.
There are stupid cops, and there are cops who make mistakes. As representatives of an extremely powerful state, they should be held to a higher standard. Just because somebody works for the government doesn’t make them infallible, and if they screw up and kill somebody for a stupid reason, they should have the book thrown at them, but damn if it doesn’t help to know what actually happened before you form up your angry lynch mob!
Violent encounters are complex, and the only thing they have in common is that they all suck. Going into any investigation with preconceived notions is foolish. Making decisions as to right or wrong before you’ve seen any of the evidence is asinine. If you are a nationally elected official, like say for example the President of the United States, who repeatedly feels the need to chime in on local crime issues before you know any facts, you are partly to blame for the resulting unrest, and should probably go have a Beer Summit.
You can’t complain about the bias in our justice system against some groups, and how the state unfairly prosecutes some more than others, and then immediately demand doing away with the burden of proof, so the state can more freely prosecute. Blacks are prosecuted more and sentenced more harshly, so your solution is to remove more of the restraints on the state’s prosecutorial powers, and you think that’ll make things better? You want people to be prosecuted based on feelings rather than evidence, and you think that’ll help? The burden of proof exists as a protection for the people from the state. We have a system for a reason. Angry mob rule based on an emotional fact-free version of events isn’t the answer.
So my request is this, at least learn how stuff works before forming a super strong opinion on it.
November 25, 2014
When a Country goes Bust, The Economist Explains [c]
Filed under: Bail-out, Business, Econonics, Education, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: Business, civil rights, democrats, Economics, finance, Government, hillary clinton, History, liberty, Obama, Politics, Secession, Socialism, taxation without representation, tea party — justplainbill @ 9:12 pm
The Economist explains
What happens when a country goes bust
Nov 24th 2014, 23:50 by S.N.
Timekeeper
FROM the days when monarchs over-borrowed for their mercantile adventures, to Argentina’s recent failure to pay its creditors, countries have long run into trouble paying back what they have borrowed. Spain’s 16th-century king, Philip II, reigned over four of his country’s defaults. Greece and Argentina have reneged on their commitments to bondholders seven and eight times respectively over the past 200 years. And most countries have defaulted at least once in their history. But what precisely happens when countries stop paying what they owe?
When a country fails to pay its creditors on time, it is said to go into “default”, the national equivalent of going bankrupt. But sovereign defaults are quite different from business bankruptcies as it is far harder for creditors to repossess the assets of a sovereign entity than to repossess the assets of a company (an unarmed Argentinian naval vessel detained in Ghana for ten weeks in 2012 was an exception). In the first instance, to curry favour in international markets, defaulting countries tend to restructure their debt rather than simply refusing to pay anything at all. But these so-called “haircuts”, where the original value of a bond is reduced, can be much more painful for the holders of government bonds than a simple clip of the scissors. After its $81 billion default in 2001, Argentina offered to pay its creditors a third of what it owed—93% of the debt was eventually swapped for performing securities in 2005 and 2010. But the remainder, which is held by vulture funds and other investors, is still in dispute. These “holdouts” are waiting for $1.3 billion plus interest. And when Greece defaulted in 2012, bondholders were forced to take hits as high as 50%. In less severe cases, countries may choose to restructure their debt by requesting more time to pay. This has the effect of reducing the present value of the bond—so it isn’t entirely pain-free for investors. Some suggest that this is the right course of action for Ukraine as it struggles to balance its immediate domestic priorities against its obligations to bondholders.
Defaults can also be very painful for the offending country, particularly if they are unexpected and disorderly. Domestic savers and investors, anticipating a fall in the value of the local currency, will scramble to withdraw their money from bank accounts and move it out of the country. To avoid bank-runs and precipitous currency depreciation, the government may shut down banks and impose capital controls. As punishment for default, capital markets will either impose punitive borrowing rates or refuse to lend at all. And credit-rating agencies will no doubt warn against investing in the country. But as history shows, in most countries yield-hungry lenders will eventually start lending again so long as they are adequately rewarded for the risk they are taking on. Moreover, credit-default swaps—financial instruments which act as a form of insurance against sovereign and corporate defaults—allow bondholders to hedge their risk. But not all defaults are the same: Argentina defaulted again this year by refusing to pay $1.3 billion plus interest to the “holdouts” from 2001.
Critically, there is no international law or court for settling sovereign defaults, which helps explain why they are so varied in length and severity. More international regulation has been proposed—including powers to prevent minority holders from hijacking the process—but such conditions ultimately remain up to the issuing country. The first bond issuances since the new proposals (by Kazakhstan and Vietnam) include these clauses. Other countries might follow suit, but this doesn’t resolve the $900 billion of bonds outstanding that were issued under the old rules. Like any messy divorce, drawn out negotiations around defaults can be costly for all parties involved. Working towards better pre-nuptial terms might not be such a bad idea.
[Not mentioned, is that the domestic GDP has historically shrunk between 7 and 19%, with corresponding increase in box 6 of the employment stats, meaning REAL unemployment, not the misleading box 3 stats released by the gov’t.]
Note specifically Paragraphs one and two, (The Economist is London UK based)
Filed under: Business, Econonics, Education, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Islam, Media Check, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: Business, civil rights, democrats, Economics, federal government, Freedom, Government, hillary clinton, History, liberty, Military, News Media, Obama, Politics, Racism, Secession, Socialism, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — justplainbill @ 5:18 pm
The Economist Espresso
To
me
Today at 5:19 AM
Espresso Logo
The Economist Espresso via e-mail for Tuesday November 25th
Today’s agenda
Race, justice and protest: the Michael Brown verdict
“There is inevitably going to be some negative reaction, and it will make for good TV.” So Barack Obama concluded a press conference late last night, after prosecutors in Ferguson, Missouri, announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the police officer who in August shot an unarmed black man, Michael Brown. The decision, inexplicably, did not come until 8pm, by which time protesters in Ferguson were facing off with police. Even as the president spoke, cable-TV channels screened pictures of men throwing bottles and bricks and the police firing tear gas. There were mainly peaceful demonstrations in several other cities. Mr Obama condemned violence, but he also pointed out that “communities of colour are not just making these problems up.” As the tear gas clears, the investigation goes on: Eric Holder, the attorney-general, said that the federal Justice Department’s investigation into the shooting of Mr Brown continues.
Collateral damage: Obama fires Hagel
When you’re in a hole, fire someone. That being Washington’s way, Barack Obama’s national security team is now wondering who will be next, after the easing out yesterday of Chuck Hagel, the defence secretary. Mr Hagel was picked for his Obama-like caution less than two years ago. His mission: to help wind down the Afghan conflict and shrink America’s war machine to fit a new era in which military force would be a tool of last resort. Then Team Obama learned that, alas, in foreign policy, others get a vote: from Islamic State fanatics to muscle-flexing Chinese generals and revanchist Vladimir Putin. Poor, decent, briefed-against Mr Hagel—a former Republican senator who came by his war-wariness honourably, seeing action in Vietnam—was judged an inept salesman for the old Obama doctrine, and never penetrated the president’s inner circle. More departures surely loom. Some inner-circle sackings would actually help, but don’t count on them.
Indian Kashmir: Modi’s new frontier
Polls open in the perpetually disgruntled Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir today, in the first of five rounds of voting for the state assembly. For the first time the Bharatiya Janata Party of the prime minister, Narendra Modi, known for its Hindu nationalism, stands a chance of leading a coalition government in the Muslim-majority state. It is expected to win by a landslide in the largely Hindu Jammu, but may find allies even in the troubled Kashmir valley. The insurgency there, fired by local resentment at Indian rule and by infiltration from Pakistan, which still claims sovereignty over all of Kashmir, is at a low ebb. So turnout will be high, despite separatists’ call for a boycott. The election will not bring peace, however, without an agreement between India and Pakistan. And, though their leaders may talk at a summit in Nepal this week, that is not on the cards.
Time is money: the IMF and Ukraine
A mission from the IMF leaves Ukraine today, after a two-week visit for talks with the newish coalition. In April, when Ukraine was at real risk of defaulting on its debts, the fund promised it $17 billion: $4.6 billion has arrived. Ukraine wants more; the IMF wants a commitment to reform. Ukraine could yet default: foreign-exchange reserves are probably about $10 billion, and $14 billion-worth of external repayments fall due before the end of 2016. The currency, the hryvnia, has lost half its value this year: some think it may soon fall to 25 to the dollar, from 15 now. The country’s banks are struggling: one, VAB Bank, was declared insolvent on Friday. Meanwhile the conflict with Russian-backed separatists in the east drags on, despite a notional ceasefire. Arguments within the coalition could delay the next slug of IMF money until next year. That may be too late.
Printing banknotes: no more easy money
De La Rue, a British company that prints banknotes for dozens of countries, reported gloomy half-year results today: revenues fell by 8%, year-on-year, and profits by 36%. Its new boss, Martin Sutherland, who joined last month, will have to work hard for his cash. A profit warning in September, the second within a year, caused De La Rue’s shares to plunge by 34%, shortly after the firm won the contract to print plastic banknotes for the Bank of England from 2016. Overcapacity in the industry and growing competition have squeezed margins; De La Rue is thought to have won the Bank of England contract only by offering a huge discount. Fortunately, its other area of expertise—printing passports—offers brighter prospects, as governments everywhere add new security features. For Mr Sutherland, more emphasis on travel documents may be just the ticket, now that producing banknotes is no longer a licence to print money.
The world in brief
The “P5+1” countries (America, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia) and Iran pushed back their deadline for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme from yesterday to the end of June. Iran insists its motives are peaceful and wants sanctions lifted; the other powers want to cut Iran’s enrichment capacity.
Hong Kong’s government began removing tents and barricades from roads in the volatile Mong Kok area, amid signs that public support for the two-month-old pro-democracy protests has started to fizzle, and the movement itself appears increasingly divided between a peaceful majority and a more confrontational splinter group.
Tunisia’s presidential election is heading for a run-off next month between the favourite, Beji Caid Sebsi, and the incumbent, Moncef Marzouki, after Sunday’s first round. Mr Sebsi’s secular Nidaa Tounes (“Tunisian Call”) came top in recent parliamentary elections; Mr Marzouki may attract supporters of Nahda (“Awakening”), an Islamist party with no candidate of its own.
BT, Britain’s biggest fixed-line telecoms provider, said it was in preliminary talks with two mobile operators about a possible merger. One is O2, a mobile network owned by Spain’s Telefónica that BT spun off in 2002. The other is reportedly EE, owned by Orange, of France, and Deutsche Telekom.
The chief executive of United Technologies, which makes Otis lifts, Pratt & Whitney engines and Sikorsky helicopters, resigned unexpectedly. The company did not say why Louis Chenevert had stood aside, to be replaced by Gregory Hayes, the chief financial officer, but insisted it had nothing to do with its unspectacular financial performance.
Executives from Sony told investors today that they expected revenues in the company’s troubled electronics division to rise by 70% in the next three years. They are pinning their hopes mainly on the PlayStation 4, a successful games console, and image sensors; they warned of cuts to Sony’s TV and smartphone units.
A museum in Bern said it would accept a bequest of artworks from the estate of Cornelius Gurlitt, whose hoard of paintings included many collected by Jewish families in Nazi Germany. The museum said it would work to return looted art to its rightful owners.
Markets & Currencies
International markets
At last close
DJIA : 17817.90 (+7.84 / +0.04%)
S&P 500 : 2069.41 (+0.00 / +0.00%)
FTSE 100 : 6729.79 (-20.97 / -0.31%)
DAX : 9785.54 (+52.99 / +0.54%)
Nikkei 225 : 17407.62 (+50.11 / +0.29%)
Hang Seng : 23843.91 (-49.23 / -0.21%)
Crude Oil (WTI) : 76.04 (+0.26 / +0.34%)
Gold : 1201.00 (+5.30 / +0.44%)
Major world currencies
Last updated: Tue 25 November, 11:06 GMT
Currency
EUR – USD 1.2439
GBP – USD 1.568
USD – JPY 118.115
AUD – USD 0.8551
USD – CAD 1.1293
USD – CHF 0.9666
EUR – GBP 0.7933
That’s it!
“Cultivation of the mind is as necessary as food to the body.” — Marcus Tullius Cicero
We’re delighted that you are reading the e-mail edition of Espresso. If you have an iPhone or Android smartphone, why not try the app version? The words are the same, but many readers prefer the design.
The Economist Espresso via e-mail has been tailored for the Americas | Change | Unsubscribe
Connect with us on Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn
Copyright © The Economist Group 2014. All rights reserved.
November 23, 2014
As Goes the National Cathedral, So Goes the Nation … If We Allow It, by Sylvia Thompson [nc]
Filed under: Education, Elections, Historical context, Media Check, Political Commentary, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: civil rights, constitutional law, democrats, federal government, Government, hillary clinton, History, legal trends, Media Watch, Obama, Politics, Racism, Secession, Socialism, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — justplainbill @ 11:22 pm
Sylvia Thompson column
As goes the National Cathedral, so goes the nation…if we allow it
Sylvia Thompson
Sylvia Thompson
November 22, 2014
Christians need only look at the travesty of Muslims praying to Allah in a house of Almighty God to understand the degree to which Christian leadership has deteriorated in America – the nation founded by Christians for the worship of Christ Jesus.
The worship service was orchestrated by leaders of the National Cathedral, which is an Episcopal denomination. It was touted as outreach.
The Episcopal Church has experienced a decline in membership over recent years, like so many mainline churches, because of its disdain for Holy Scripture. The church has undergone much controversy over its ordination of women as spiritual leaders, its embrace of the homosexual agenda, and its “nuanced” stance toward the killing of the unborn (as characterized by the presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori).
True adherents to the Bible in the Episcopal Church broke away from church leadership when Gene Robinson was ordained a bishop. Robinson is a practicing homosexual who was, at the time, in a scripturally condemned relationship with another man. The biblical Christians formed new congregations, unaffiliated with the main congregation, and they are thriving.
Given this history, the decision by leftist Episcopalian leadership (represented by Gina Campbell, pastor of the cathedral) to host a Muslim worship service is not at all surprising. Church leaders may call it outreach, but to allow the worship of a faith that is blatantly antagonistic to Christianity is an agenda, not outreach.
I listened to a couple of Muslim spokesmen in attendance make the case that this event represented a coming together of Muslims to “condemn” the radical hijackers of their faith. Somehow none of their smooth talk rang true in light of the hatred of Christianity that Islam fosters. Muslims could make a statement of condemnation from one of the many mosques proliferating this country. Why is it necessary to make it in a Christian church? Quick answer, it is not.
This action is a blatant, in-your-face to America’s Christian community, aided and abetted by the Left. The goal of Islam is for its adherents to infiltrate and overthrow whatever land Muslims are allowed to reside in, and a weak American Christian community is perfect fodder for overthrow. I have not heard a lot of comments from Christians to counter this latest Muslim affront.
That is, except for Pastor Franklin Graham and one gutsy Christian woman named Christine Weick.
Ms. Weick maneuvered her way into the Cathedral, which in her telling of the event was something of a miraculous feat in itself. Before this Christian woman was booted out, she was able to announce this statement to those worshippers of another god in God’s house:
“Jesus Christ died on that cross. He is the reason we are to worship only Him. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior,” she said. “We have built…allowed you your mosques in this country. Why don’t you worship in your mosques and leave our churches alone? We are a country founded on Christian principles.” [1]
With that, she was led from the room by security and handed over to police. She assumed that she would be thrown in jail but she was not. In her description of the response of the men removing her (none of whom said a word), I get the impression that these men detected the irony of it all – a Christian thrown out of a Christian church to accommodate Muslims, in America.
Pastor Graham was the only Christian leader, that I am aware, who took a firm stand. He has exhibited leadership many times in the past when other presumed Christian leaders cowered in fear of speaking out. Or, they have themselves moved away from Scripture and capitulated to our rotting culture. Pastor Graham posted this comment on his Facebook page:
“Tomorrow, the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. – one of the most prominent Episcopal churches in America – will host a Muslim prayer service to Allah. It’s sad to see a church open its doors to the worship of anything other than the One True God of the Bible who sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to earth to save us from our sins. Jesus was clear when He said, ‘I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’ (John 14:6).” [2]
All biblical Christians know that a church structure does not in itself make a “church.” Christianity is something that a follower of Christ embraces and incorporates into his very being. Knowledge of Scripture and an acceptance of and adherence to its teachings is what makes a Christian, not the building in which services are held. Many Christians around the world have no buildings because they must worship clandestinely.
I make this point to show that the affront to American Christians by Muslims worshipping with their backs to the cross in the National Cathedral is a minor thing, spiritually. But it is a major thing when we assess what it truly represents. It shows that American Muslims, minus the violence, are no different from their radical counterparts. Their goal is to worm their way into American culture so that eventually there will be no other sanctioned worship besides Islam.
It is no coincidence that the rise of the liberal Left in America is accompanied by the spread of Islam in America. Both entities have as a goal the destruction of America as it was founded. And neither will succeed if we do not allow them to succeed.
NOTES:
[1] See WND.com http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/christian-booted-from-national-cathedral-speaks-out/#KDJsJzTVVXOhTfyA.99
[2] See Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/US/Franklin-Graham-Billy-Graham-Muslims-Washington-National-Cathedral/2014/11/17/id/607906/#ixzz3JXMZt9an
Sylvia Thompson is a black conservative writer whose aim is to counter the liberal spin on issues pertaining to race and culture.
Ms. Thompson is a copy editor by trade currently residing in Tennessee. She formerly wrote for the Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley California Newsletter and the online conservative blog ChronWatch, also out of California.
She grew up in Southeast Texas during the waning years of Jim Crow-era legalized segregation, and she concludes that race relations in America will never improve, nor will we ever elevate our culture, as long as there are victims to be pandered to and villains to be vilified. America is better served without victims or villains.
© Copyright 2014 by Sylvia Thompson
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/sthompson/141122
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: Business, civil rights, democrats, Economics, education, federal government, Freedom, Government, harry reid, hillary clinton, History, legal trends, liberty, News Media, Obama, pelosi, Politics, Racism, Secession, Socialism, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — 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 20, 2014
1862 Quote by Dr. Henley of SC, how prophetic is this?
Filed under: Econonics, Education, Elections, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Media Check, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: 2nd Amendment, affordable care act, Business, Christianity, civil rights, constitutional law, dhs, Economics, education, finance, Government, harry reid, hillary clinton, History, Military, Obama, pelosi, Politics, Racism, Secession, Socialism, taxation without representation, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — justplainbill @ 10:03 pm
“If they (the North) prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its power from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God, and when all the checks and balances of the constitution are gone, we may easily figure to ourselves the career and the destiny of this godless monster of democratic absolutism. The progress of regulated liberty on this continent will be arrested, anarchy will soon succeed, and the end will be a military despotism, which preserves order by the sacrifice of the last vestige of liberty. They are now fighting the battle of despotism. They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions; they future fortunes of our children, and of this continent, would then be determined by a tyranny which has no parallel in history.” ~Dr. James Henly Thornwell of South Carolina, In Our Danger and our Duty, 1862
[Secession.]
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: 2nd Amendment, affordable care act, civil rights, constitutional law, democrats, dhs, Economics, federal government, finance, Freedom, Government, harry reid, hillary clinton, History, Lamestream Media, liberty, News Media, Obama, Politics, Racism, Secession, Socialism, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — 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…
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: 2nd Amendment, civil rights, Freedom, Government, harry reid, hillary clinton, History, Military, Obama, pelosi, Politics, Secession, Socialism, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — 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: 2nd Amendment, Christianity, civil rights, Freedom, harry reid, History, liberty, Military, Obama, pelosi, Politics, Secession, Socialism, tea party, us constitution, Welfare — 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 7, 2014
Californicates the rest of the U.S.A., CA grants illegals driver’s licenses [nc]
Filed under: Business, Econonics, Elections, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Law Enforcement, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: 2nd Amendment, Business, California, constitutional law, democrats, driver's licenses, Economics, education, federal government, Government, harry reid, hillary clinton, History, legal trends, liberty, News Media, Obama, pelosi, Politics, Racism, Secession, Socialism, stupidity, tea party, us constitution — justplainbill @ 6:54 pm
California plans to issue 1.4 million driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants under new law
Published November 07, 2014
FOX 40
undocumented cali.jpg
California (FOX 40) – California Division of Motor Vehicles is preparing for roughly 1.4 million new driver’s license applicants after Jan. 1.
That’s when Assembly Bill 60, or the Safe and Responsible Drivers Act, goes into effect.
FOX40 spoke with a Maria Rodriguez, an undocumented immigrant living in West Sacramento who plans to apply for a license under the new law.
“It’s the best thing that could have happened to us in California. We’ve been waiting for it for many, many years,” Rodriguez said.
To prepare for all of the new applicants, the Department of Motor Vehicles has hired about 900 new employees and opened several temporary offices across the state.
The DMV is encouraging all eligible applicants to start preparing for their drivers tests early.
When Nevada adopted a similar law, about 90 percent of undocumented immigrants failed the written exam.
Undocumented immigrants will go through the same steps everyone else does to get a license.
They’ll take a written and vision test, if they pass they’ll get their permit then they’ll take a behind-the-wheel test and if they pass that, they will get a license but theirs will look a little bit different than everyone else’s.
On the front, it will say “Federal Limits Apply.” On the back it reads: “This card is not acceptable for official federal purposes” and that it can only be used as a license to drive.
The requirements are: proof of California residency, fingerprints and proper identification.
“Our challenge has been to identify documents that are produced by other countries that are secure enough. That means that they verify that the person who is getting them is actually the person who is applying for them,” California DMV spokesperson Armando Botello said.
The DMV believes a licensed driver equals a safer driver.
“We strongly believe that by having more people with a driver’s license and having gone through the whole process, the roads will be somehow safer in California,” Botello said.
The law has an outspoken opponent.
Don Rosenberg’s son was hit and killed by an undocumented immigrant driver in 2010. Last summer, Rosenberg was the only person to testify against AB60 at the capitol.
Safety is his big concern.
“There’s no evidence that giving drivers test to anyone – not necessarily people here illegally but giving drivers licenses to anyone makes the roads safer and makes them better drivers and to the contrary the evidence is overwhelming that it doesn’t,” Rosenberg said.
Rosenberg feels undocumented immigrants are not experienced enough to drive, and says because the DMV’s written test is offered in 10 languages, he fears they will not be able to read and understand signs on the road.
Maria Rodriguez says the language barrier won’t be an issue for her because she speaks perfect English. Getting a license will give her the freedom to drive her kids around without worry.
“Even though they would not give driver’s licenses, there`s still people like me driving out there, so they`re still gonna do it. As a matter of fact, just give something good to the people that deserve it, that will really take advantage of it,” Rodriguez said.
Like it or not, starting after January first, Maria Rodriguez and roughly 1.4 million others can begin the process of becoming licensed to drive.
California will become the 11th state to allow undocumented immigrants to get drivers licenses.
It will cost the standard amount of $33. Like all drivers, undocumented immigrants are required to have insurance.
They must provide proof of residency and ID. The DMV still has not released the list of documents accepted to prove identity.
A DMV spokesperson expects the list to be released in the coming weeks.
Read more news at FOX 40
Justplainbill's Weblog 
What is America’ Survival Plan? by Carol Brown [nc]
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/12/what_is_americas_survival_plan_.html
December 26, 2014
What is America’s survival plan?
By Carol Brown
We’re facing the greatest national security threat we have ever known and there is no coherent plan to battle the enemy. This nation is so far behind the eight ball, the president and his minions won’t even name the enemy, no less fight it.
Name = Islam
Even worse, those in positions of power and influence misrepresent what the enemy stands for. Like a pre-recorded announcement that just won’t stop, we are endlessly subjected to the false refrain: Islam is a religion of peace. By Muslim lights, we live in the Dar al Harb, the territory of war, simply because we refuse to accept Islam. We didn’t declare war, Mohammed did.
And when it comes to the threat of Islamic supremacism, it’s not only the left that’s putting us at risk. The right is hardly better, as both parties serve up a boatload of ignorance, complicity, and cowardice on a daily basis. Our elected officials draft legislation, set foreign policy, speak at podiums, sit on panels, write press releases, pen op-eds, and yack away on talk shows about the wonders of Islam. If anyone challenges what they’re peddling, the peddlers get rather hot under the collar. As for the truth-tellers, they are mocked, marginalized, and vilified.
And what a truth it is, as we confront a totalitarian ideology bent on world domination ruled by one religion — an ideology that is infecting every aspect of our culture and which has the potential to destroy all of civilization.
Despite this grave threat, you can count on one hand how many leaders are informed and speaking the truth. And even they — and God bless every single one of them — have offered ideas in bits and pieces, with faint calls to investigate Huma Abedin, a proposal to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, a proposal to strip citizenship from Americans who travel overseas to fight for terrorists, along with a few states that passed anti-Sharia laws. Woefully inadequate as these actions are, three-quarters of them barely saw the light of day as the truth-tellers were pilloried and the legislation never came to pass. In any case, the solutions noted above are not an overarching strategy.
Not even close.
How can that be? The most brutal and ruthless enemy is advancing toward us and has infiltrated every arm of our government, and there is hardly a word said, no less a plan offered, as to how to beat them back. Quite the opposite. We are welcoming them with open arms. Giving them the keys to the kingdom.
If we are to survive, this madness must end. And toward that end, I suggest the following:
Name the enemy: If you don’t name the enemy, how can you win the war? Let’s stop talking like idiots. We’re battling a totalitarian ideology as written in the Koran, and the people who follow it. It’s called Islam. Not “radical Islam.” Just Islam. By any standard, the teachings in the Koran are radical. When people say “radical Islam,” it suggests there is some other form of Islam that is more tempered. Moderate, as they say. But such a thing does not exist, except as neglect of scriptural imperatives. And should anyone claim there are peaceful verses please point them to Chapter 2, Verse 106 (Abrogation) which states that later (violent) verses override and/or replace earlier (peaceful) ones.
Stop saying “war on terror”: This expression is vague and minimizes the scope of the battle. We’re fighting Islamic jihad in all its forms — from physical violence to creeping Sharia and everything in between. We are at war with those who follow the teachings of the Koran — whether they are violent jihadists or members of the school board trying to influence curriculum.
Shut down Iran’s nuclear program: Iran is a mortal threat to Israel, the United States, and indeed the entire civilized world. We should not be involved in negotiations with a nation that has declared its murderous intentions against America and her allies. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, the world as we know it will be forever altered as a blanket of death will descend. We must destroy Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon before it is too late. And the clock is running down. Quickly.
Address the malevolent influence of the Muslim Brotherhood: It is critical that we address how deeply the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government. We must designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, remove members of the Muslim Brotherhood from government positions, and shut down all Muslim Brotherhood front groups. We cannot survive if the enemy is not only attacking from without, but also from within (per their stated plan). Terrorists have no place on American soil, no less within our government. Identify them, arrest them where appropriate, and send the rest packing.
Stop construction of mosques and shut down most of those already built: Mosques are popping up all across America, with a 75% increase in new construction since 9/11. There are now well over 2,000 mosques in America (some of them “mega mosques”) with no end in sight. Two separate studiesdocument that 80% of mosques in the United States preach jihad. That number is staggering. The situation is intolerable. It pushes the limit of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. A nation cannot endure direct threats against it if it hopes to survive.
Shut down Islamic schools and get Islam out of public school classrooms: We cannot allow Islamic schools to indoctrinate the next generation of Muslim Americans, where students are taught Islamic dominance, forced conversions, death to non-believers, and the destruction of Israel. This is not a reflection of American values and serves as a direct threat to our future. If Muslim Americans want their children to attend such schools, the family should relocate to an Islamic country. We must also remove Islamic propaganda from our public schools, private schools, college and universities. And while we’re on the subject, Muslim colleges are blossoming. The most prominent (Zaytuna College) opened five years ago in Berkeley, California. But there have been others, including the Islamic Online University. At the very least, these institutions must be monitored.
Shut down American jihadist training compounds: We cannot tolerate Muslim enclaves in America where jihadist training is taught. Muslims of America have training compounds scattered throughout the country poised to inflict violence on a massive scale. This cannot stand. America is a nation that is free, not a nation that is stupid. “Anything goes” is not our founding principle. It is sheer insanity to tolerate people and organizations that train jihadists to attack Americans. Plus, last I checked, it’s against the law. We know where thesecompounds are. We must shut them down. Immediately.
Address prisons as breading grounds for Muslim converts: Prisons have become breeding grounds for Islamic converts and jihadist indoctrination. We must block the outside influence from Saudi Arabia and terror states, ensure those in the prison power structure become educated about Islam, and involve subject matter experts to help vet and monitor Muslim chaplains. No one — imams or prisoners — must be allowed to engage in violent rhetoric or activity, Muslim prison gangs must be broken apart, and perks that Muslim prisoners alone get must be stripped away.
Stop immigration from Islamic countries: As seen throughout Europe, it doesn’t take a lot of Muslims to wreak havoc on a nation. To help ensure we don’t wind up like Europe, we must halt all immigration from Islamic countries. The risks are simply too high. No nation has an obligation to allow immigration from any and all countries. And in the case of immigration from Islamic countries, it is impossible to fully vet Muslim immigrants for the following reasons: (1) We cannot know who has an agenda to impose Sharia law (and statsshow most support it). (2) We need to recognize that increasing numbers of Muslims who seem like regular folks are morphing into jihadists. (3) We must understand the role that taqiyya (sanctioned deception) plays in any vetting process. Islam is not compatible with Western values. It is not compatible with Judeo/Christian values. It is not compatible with liberty and freedom. It’s illogical to import people from cultures where some, many, or most individuals hate America and want to destroy everything we stand for. (When considering this issue, one should also keep in mind the 3 stages of jihad.)
Stop moral equivalence: All cultures are not the same. All ideas are not the same. All religions are not the same. Stop speaking as if they are. Islam is the 21st century Nazism. As Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “We’ve seen this before. There’s a master race; Now there’s a master faith.” Human beings have the ability to discern. Let’s start using this God-given gift. Western cultures are better than Islamic cultures. The idea of liberty is better than the idea of oppression. Values of love and life trump those of darkness, death, and destruction. Everything is not the same. Spread the word.
Ban the burqa and niqab: A person’s face must be exposed for all the obvious reasons. In addition, swaths of fabric draped over and around one’s body mask the human form and can also hide weapons. We’ve already had criminals exploit burqas in order to commit crimes. This sort of identity-hiding garb has no place in a modern, Western society. If a Muslim insists on wearing a burqa I suggest she move to any one of the dozens of Muslim countries where such attire is welcome, if not required. It’s not how we do things in the United States and we shouldn’t start. Cultures are different. Values are different. The United States, thank God, is not an Islamic nation. And we shouldn’t slide any further down the path of embracing Islamic values (such as they are) and norms. Including Islamic dress codes.
Allow people who want to join terror groups overseas to leave the country and ensure it’s a one-way ticket: When we become aware of persons planning to travel overseas to join ISIS or any other terror organization, we should not stop them. There is no reason to have such individuals among us. We should let them go, then slam the door behind them so they can never return: revoke their passport, visa, and U.S. citizenship. They must not be allowed to engage in this treasonous act without consequence (as is currently the case).
Secure the border: The United States must secure its borders so that, among other things, we don’t leave ourselves open to terrorists coming across. It defies common sense and sound national security to have open borders. The border must be secured.
Achieve energy independence: We must break our reliance on oil from Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries that are run by dictators who use their power and influence to undermine our nation. There is no reason this great nation cannot become energy independent if we set about to achieve that goal. We have the resources. Now we must find the will.
Stop supporting terror: We must stop all funds that go to the Palestinian Authority. We must investigate Turkey and Qatar as state sponsors of terror and reassess our ties with these nations. We should suspend funding for the UN Human Rights Commission.
Become citizen activists: This battle must be fought on all fronts by everyone. Leftists might be permanent goners, but there are a lot of folks who are simply uninformed. Get involved and speak out. Be savvy about the best way to approach others. Don’t overwhelm. Choose your focus, your words, and your support materials carefully. Here are a few ideas:
Educate others about the Koran: This is critical. Islam is a totalitarian ideology at its core and we must tell it like it is when we speak about it. Educate yourself. Then educate others. Robert Spencer has two excellent books that I highly recommend if you haven’t read them already: The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)
Educate others about the 3 stages of jihad: Islam has a methodical method to the bloody madness. Part of that method involves how to advance jihad in three stages to reach its most bellicose form. David Wood of Answering Muslims has an excellent video on the subject, here.
Support people and organizations that are on the front lines of this battle: There are many brave patriots working tirelessly to wake people up to the threat of Islam. They are a great resource and they also need our support. For blogs that focus exclusively on Islam, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here among countless examples. See here and here for political action organizations focused exclusively on Islam. (Remember, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. JoiningAct for America, for example, can help provide focus.) For legal centers on the front lines of this battle, see here and here.
Reach out to others in your place of worship: Churches and synagogues should be leading voices in this battle. Sadly, they’re not. “Interfaith dialogue” has become all the rage as many churches and synagogues enable the enemy. In addition, many churches have joined the BDS movement against Israel — a nation on the bleeding edge of the fight against jihad. We must shift this dangerous course. (When enlightening members at your place of worship, theChristian Action Network might be a resource for some that is particularly resonant.)
Know what’s going on in your community: In addition to the construction ofnew mosques, there are myriad ways that creeping Sharia creeps. Stay on top of what’s going on in your community and take action. See here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, and here for a snapshot among an endless battery of examples that are reminders of how vigilant we must be.
Stay on top of what is going on in schools: Whether you have children in school or not, it behooves all of us to know what’s going on in the school system. Lord knows, CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups are campaigning, lobbying, applying pressure, and in some cases, suing to make sure Islam marches through the halls of our public and private schools (as well as colleges and universities). We will all pay a price for the next generation’s brainwashing if we don’t address it. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here, and here among countless examples.
Let your elected officials know where you stand and what you expect from them: Most of them are clueless. At best. They need to be educated. Who’s going to educate them? That would be us. We cannot, for example, ever again have an imam lead a prayer in Congress. Not. ever. again.
Contact the media: Speak out about biased and erroneous coverage of Islam, Sharia, and terror. Urge them to stop inviting guests who are members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Educate them about this issue.
Be creative and take initiative: Every day, whether on an international, national scale, or local level, the West is increasingly in the grip of Islamic law. Find ways to speak the truth and educate the public. Here’s an inspiring story: A group of concerned citizens formed an organization called the Counter Jihad Coalition. They created brochures on Islam and, armed with knowledge and these materials, they stand in a public square (in this case, 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California) and educate others. To read more about them and hear an interview, see here.
And: The Counter Jihad Report has compiled a comprehensive list of things citizens can do. Each item on the list links to a page with more detail on the particular area of interest. There are also excellent suggestions on the best ways to approach people. I highly recommend AT readers visit this page where you can explore and find one or two things to act on, here.
In closing, I would like to say that the current state of affairs with respect to our nation’s retreat is unsustainable. We either fight with everything we have, or we will be undone. The terrifying command to “convert or die” will not be a savage reality forced upon people in other nations. It will be bellowed through this land. And while many of us feel overwhelmed with our time and energy stretched thin, please consider that if we don’t take this on now, an inconceivable darkness will envelope our lives that will silence our voices — if not our beating hearts — on this, and every single thing.
No one will be immune to the evil that is coming. Democrats, Republicans and Independents; patriots and dhimmis; men, women, and children; the young, the old and everyone in between; rich and poor; Christians, Mormons, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists; black, brown, and white; the educated and uneducated; public servants and private sector employees; doctors, teachers, roofers, truck drivers, lawyers, veterinarians, CEO’s, cooks, plumbers, dog walkers; as well as dogs.
America is the ultimate target of this evil. We either fight now, or face the unthinkable later. And later is much sooner than we think.