Justplainbill's Weblog

December 11, 2014

Hillary’s Treasonous Judgement, [nc]

Filed under: Historical context, Islam, Media Check, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 3:18 pm

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 5:07 AM

In the below listed article you can read how Robin Raphel, who was appointed to a number of important positions by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, subsequently committed High Treason. Clinton’s extremely poor judgment in the appointment of Robin Raphael, and in her failure to protect the US Ambassador to Libya, two Navy SEALs , and a US Embassy Communications Expert in the Battle of Benghazi highlights the fact that she is a one woman wrecking ball.

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

______________________________________________________________________________________

HIGH TREASON: FBI SPY Probe of Powerful Clinton Ally Robin Raphel

Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs, in FREEDOM OUTPOST

A longtime Clinton ally, assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs in the Clinton administration, former Ambassador to Tunisia and donor, Robin Raphel, is at the center of an FBI counterintelligence (spy) probe. She was a registered foreign agent for the Pakistani government up until just days before she was appointed to run the U.S. State Department’s Pakistan aid team ….. (read more)

American investigators intercepted a conversation this year in which a Pakistani official said that his government was receiving American secrets from a prominent former State Department diplomat, officials said, setting off an espionage investigation.

If this were a Republican (think Scooter Libby, who was falsely accused of a bogus leak to the press), the media would be all over this like white on rice. Instead, it has caused barely a ripple in the traitor press.

But the Indian media has been reporting on it closely. Raphel alienated our ally India and damaged our close relationship with that key ally when she recognized Pakistan’s jihad claims to Kashmir, changing longtime American policy.

In 1995, U.S. diplomat Robin Raphel was the toast of the State department. President Bill Clinton appointed her the first Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia (the post later included Central Asia), and she was known to be close to him and Hillary Clinton …. more here.

Between Huma Abedin, Robin Raphel, and Benghazi, former Sec of State Hillary Clinton became a one-woman American wrecking ball.

Robin Raphel, a veteran State Department diplomat and longtime Pakistan expert is under federal investigation as part of a counterintelligence probe and has had her security clearances withdrawn, according to U.S. officials.

The FBI searched the Northwest Washington home of Robin L. Raphel last month, and her State Department office was also examined and sealed, officials said. Raphel, a fixture in Washington’s diplomatic and think-tank circles, was placed on administrative leave last month, and her contract with the State Department was allowed to expire this week. (Washington Post)

The Republic is infiltrated with traitors like Robin Raphel, Marxists, and Communists appointees of Obama.

In 1993, President Clinton appointed Raphel as the first Assistant Secretary of State for a newly created position within the State Department[3] that would focus on a growing array of problems in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, including democratic stability, nuclear proliferation, energy access, Islamist and Taliban extremism, poverty and women’s rights issues.

Raphel was an early and adamant supporter of the Taliban.

She alienated our ally India in her “signature characterization of Kashmir” as “disputed territory,” a first in the annals of U.S. diplomacy, and it made her quick friends in Pakistan. Her predilections were obvious.

A second major policy directive that Raphel advocated and developed during her tenure was engagement and cooperation with the Taliban

Robin Lynn Raphel is a former American diplomat, Ambassador, CIA Analyst and an expert on Pakistan affairs.[1] Until November 2, 2014, she served as coordinator for non-military assistance to Pakistan, carrying on the work of the late Richard Holbrooke, whose AfPak team she joined in 2009.[2] In 1993, she was appointed by President Bill Clinton as the nation’s first Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, a newly created position at the time designed to assist the U.S. government in managing an increasingly complex region.

Robin Raphel later served as U.S. Ambassador to Tunisia from November 7, 1997 to August 6, 2000, during President Bill Clinton’s second term in office.

In the 2000s, Robin Raphel held a number of official positions related to her expertise on South Asia.

In 2009, Robin Raphel joined the Afghanistan-Pakistan task force known as AfPak, joining the late Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for the Af-Pak region. Her focus was how to allocate U.S. resources committed under the proposed Kerry-Lugar Bill. That legislation was enacted in late 2009, tripling civilian U.S. aid to Pakistan to approximately $1.5 billion annually (Wikipedia)

“Raphel probe triggered by intercept of Pakistan official’s chat,” Indian Express (via the NY Times)| Washington | November 21, 2014 (thanks to Lookmann)

American investigators intercepted a conversation this year in which a Pakistani official suggested that his government was receiving American secrets from a prominent former State Department diplomat, officials said, setting off an espionage investigation that has stunned diplomatic circles here.

That conversation led to months of secret surveillance on the former diplomat, Robin L Raphel, and an FBI raid last month at her home, where agents discovered classified information, the officials said.

The investigation is an unexpected turn in a distinguished career that has spanned four decades. Raphel rose to become one of the highest-ranking female diplomats and a fixture in foreign policy circles, serving as ambassador to Tunisia and as assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs in the Clinton administration.

Raphel, 67, considered one of the leading American experts on Pakistan, was stripped of her security clearances last month and no longer has access to the State Department building .

Raphel has not been charged with a crime. The scope of the investigation is not known, and it is unclear exactly what the Pakistani official said in the intercepted conversation that led to suspicion about Raphel.

Still, the new details shed some light on the evidence that Justice Department prosecutors are weighing as they decide whether to bring charges. And they help explain why the FBI viewed the matter seriously enough to search her home and State Department office, steps that would bring the investigation into the open.

Raphel is among a generation of diplomats who rose through the ranks of the State Department at a time when Pakistan was among America’s closest allies and a reliable bulwark against the Soviet Union. After retiring from the government in 2005, she lobbied on behalf of the Pakistani government before accepting a contract to work as a State Department advisor.

While the FBI secretly watched Raphel in recent months, agents suspected that she was improperly taking classified information home from the State Department, the officials said. Armed with a warrant, the agents searched her home in a prosperous neighbourhood near the Maryland border with Washington, and found classified information, the officials said.

Andrew Rice, a spokesman for Raphel, said: “Nothing has changed for Ambassador Raphel. She has not been told she is the target of an investigation, and she has not been questioned.”

In a sign of the seriousness of the case, Raphel has hired Amy Jeffress, a lawyer who until recently was one of the Justice Department’s top national security prosecutors. Jeffress served as a counsellor to Attorney General Eric H Holder Jr on security matters, as the Justice Department’s attaché to London, and as chief of national security at the United States Attorney’s Office in Washington. She joined the law firm Arnold & Porter this year. Jeffress declined to comment.

While the US and Pakistan remain allies in the war on terrorism, tensions between the two countries have been frequently strained. American officials suspect Pakistan of supporting the Taliban and believe Pakistan has dispatched several double agents to collect intelligence from the US government. Pakistani officials bristle continued…

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/11/high-treason-fbi-spy-probe-powerful-clinton-ally-robin-raphel/#OuZ1IBL1WpLdo1xf.99

December 10, 2014

Bill Whittle on the Real Race War, from Capt. John [nc]

Filed under: Police, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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

Hillary’s Bad Politics and Worse Ideas, Bruce S. Thornton [nc]

Filed under: Bail-out, Business, Econonics, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Media Check, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:16 pm

Hillary’s Bad Politics and Worse Ideas
December 10, 2014 7:15 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson

by Bruce S. Thornton // FrontPage Magazine
Photo via FrontPage Magazine

Photo via FrontPage Magazine

Once again Hillary Clinton has given the Republicans some suicidal soundbites they should stash away for 2016 in the likely event she is the Democratic candidate for president. A review of some of her recent statements reveals that Clinton is not just entitled, money-grubbing, unlikeable, unpleasant, and unaccomplished. Nor do they just show that she is a political dunce who has obviously learned nothing from her politically brilliant husband. More seriously, they expose her commitment to failed ideas and dangerous delusions.

First there was the “What difference at this point does it make!” she practically shrieked to Senator Ron Johnson during a January 2013 hearing on the Benghazi debacle that unfolded on September 11, 2012. Clinton had told the grieving parents of the victims during the transfer of remains ceremony at Andrews Air Force base that they died because of “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” Four Americans, including an ambassador, had been murdered on her watch, but she refused to explain to the Senate why she blamed the hapless maker of a YouTube video, who spent a year in jail.

This evasion is significant, for within hours of the attack it was clear that it had been a carefully coordinated, well-planned assault, not the spontaneous reaction to a video. Soon it also became known that ambassador Stevens had repeatedly requested increased security, but had been denied by officials in the State and Defense Departments. As Secretary of State, Clinton was ultimately responsible for those decisions made by State, as well as for the astonishing failure to notice the escalating violence in the months before the attacks, or the significance of the anniversary of 9/11, or the immediate evidence that the attack was not a spontaneous reaction to a video that had been on YouTube for weeks.

But in her response to all this evidence of negligence and post facto political spin, all she could do was indignantly declare that all these failures were irrelevant. In 2016, this footage of the arm-waving, shrill Clinton transparently trying to misdirect the Senators and the citizens from her patent incompetence should be played and replayed in political ads.

Next came the more recent revelation of her embarrassing economic ignorance, shameless pandering to her left-wing base. At a campaign event in October, attended also by lefty heartthrob Elizabeth Warren, Clinton lectured, “Don’t let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”

Somehow Clinton missed the 1980s, when economic and tax policies that encouraged business investment led to spectacular growth. As the Laffer Center explains,

“According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, 1982-1999 was one continuous mega-economic expansion. In fact, as it stretched into 2007, this 25 Year Boom saw a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. households and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion by 2007. When adjusted for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25-year boom than in the previous 200 years. This sustained economic growth is not only impressive on its own, but even more astonishing as it compares to the period immediately preceding it. In the 10 years from 1972-1982, recessions were deep and recoveries were short. In fact, throughout American history, the nation’s economy has been in recession or depression roughly one-third of the time. But from 1981-2005, the annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. was 3.4 percent per year, and 3.8 percent per year during the 1983-1989 Reagan expansion alone.”

Compare that to the performance of Obama’s economic policies over the last 6 years, when intrusive regulatory regimes like Dodd-Frank and a runaway EPA, Obamacare’s highjacking of the health-care industry, the trillion-dollar stimulus squandered on crony socialist projects like “green energy,” and the anti-business rhetoric of Obama’s “you didn’t build that,” have all led to sluggish economic growth, metastasizing debt, declining income for the middle class, an explosion in entitlement spending, and nearly 20 million unemployed and under-employed.

Contrary to Clinton’s Keynesian superstitions and dirigiste magical thinking, what has “failed spectacularly” has been progressive economic policies that think parasitic politicians and unaccountable government bureaucrats can manage a complex, dynamic economic system better than a free market that incentivizes people to actually build businesses that create jobs and increase wealth. And just as spectacularly incompetent is Hillary’s political tin ear that lets her make such a statement just to curry favor with a narrow base of anti-capitalist fundamentalists, when she surely must know that come the 2016 presidential election, those words will be pinned to the Obama albatross sure to be hanging around her neck.

Finally, there is the bizarre statement at Georgetown last week about improving our foreign policy with what she called “smart power”: “Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions.” She then added a banal cliché of modern feminism, suggesting that the lack of women negotiators and signatories was responsible for the failure of many peace treaties. After all, women are naturally more empathetic and sensitive to others’ “point of view,” one of those Victorian stereotypes that feminists used to tell us were sexist insults.

These comments embody everything that is wrong with a modern foreign policy based on Kantian delusions about a global “harmony of interests,” the notion that all peoples are just like us and want all the same goods such as peace, prosperity, political freedom, and respect for human rights. If they behave differently, it’s because they just don’t know these goods are in their best interests, or they have been traumatized by history, particularly the depredations of Western colonialism, imperialism, and capitalist exploitation, which are the causes of their violent aggression and brutality. Thus if we “understand” and “empathize” with the roots of our enemies’ behavior, they will see the light and abandon aggression and tyranny.

This is the same delusion that Obama based his foreign policy on, as evidenced by his infamous “apology tour,” on which he donned the hair shirt of Western sin and groveled before foreign audiences. It’s the application to foreign affairs of the two-bit psychologizing that dominates the public schools, where boosting self-esteem and “empathizing” with punks and bullies are the favored mechanisms for teaching and civilizing young people. It utterly lacks any understanding of the tragic constants of human nature and the wisdom accumulated by the human race since the ancient Greeks and Hebrews––that, as Machiavelli said, “all men are bad and that they will use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity.”

For all her alleged foreign policy toughness, Clinton’s philosophy embodies the bad utopian ideals that have enabled much of the disorder afflicting the world since their spectacular failure in preventing World War I. We hear the same delusions in the words of Neville Chamberlain after Hitler’s Anschluss of Austria in March 1938, when he told the House of Commons, “We should take any and every opportunity to try to remove any genuine and legitimate grievance that may exist,” and then imagined telling Hitler, “The best thing you can do is to tell us exactly what you want for your Sudeten Deutsch.” Such blind “empathy” and “understanding” and “respect” for Germany’s “grievances,” of course, in 6 months culminated in the debacle of Munich and the devastating sequel of World War II.

Contrary to Clinton and Obama, enemies like Vladimir Putin, ISIS, Bashar al Assad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, the Ayatollah Khamenei, and Xi Jinping are not the global village’s wayward teenagers “acting out” because they don’t know their own best interests and suffer from insufficient self-esteem and “respect.” They are hard, brutal men, vicious and ruthless, who know exactly what they want, and who possess beliefs alien to Western ideals like liberal democracy, human rights, tolerance, and a preference for diplomatic words and “mutual understanding and respect.” In their “perspective” and “point of view,” violence is a tool of international relations, and a legitimate instrument for achieving their aims and interests. And they have nothing but contempt for our schoolmarmish empathy and respect, which they correctly interpret as civilizational weakness and a failure of morale. All they respect is force. That’s the most important truth we need to “understand.”

These 3 statements reveal political beliefs and character flaws that should automatically disqualify Hillary Clinton from being president. And even if we attribute them to rank ambition and venal opportunism rather than sincere belief, their sheer political stupidity and lack of prudence bespeak a mind and character unfit for leading the most powerful country on the planet.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/hillarys-bad-politics-and-worse-ideas/

Copyright © 2014 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.

December 9, 2014

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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

The Economist Explains Grand Juries [nc]

Filed under: Education, Historical context, Law Enforcement, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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.

Dutch Orchestra votes with its feet [nc]

Filed under: Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:05 pm

What a great way

to call “nonsence” on someone, sometimes you gotta vote with
your feet

When the most
liberal leftist country in Europe pulls the plug on Islam, the world is
beginning to see the light…

The Dutch orchestra walked out on a concert directed by a Muslim who made his
personal beliefs known to Queen Beatrix of Holland. Now that took courage.

Good for the people of Holland. Watch the walk out.

I’ll bet you didn’t see this on your local news at 11 pm….

Well done to the Dutch Orchestra! Dutch Orchestral Concert Staged Friday, 09 May,
2014! Queen Beatrix of Holland attends an Orchestral Concert.

The Conductor, who just happens to be Muslim, proceeds to give the Queen a
lecture on the “beauty” of Islam.

Then the members of the Orchestra stage a walkout! Great to see people with the
courage of their convictions!

http://www.safeshare.tv/w/cqjiYhtiXs

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 9:13 pm

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

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

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

Think about it.]

Where Your Taxes Go

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

MIXTURE

Examples: [Collected via e-mail, 2006]

WHERE YOUR TAXES GO – ILLEGAL ALIENS

Attributed to the LA Times, June 2002:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(All 10 from the Los Angeles Times)

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

http://www.cis.org/

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

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

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

29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 17, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“GOD BLESS AMERICA”

Mitchell Paige, Col. USMC

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

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

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

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

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

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

Thought this needed sharing !

Semper Fi !

GBA,

Ron

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

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

DOWN TO ONE MARINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The weapon did not fail.

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

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

One hill: one Marine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 14, 2014

ABA Weekly – Note particularly 2 articles: 2 lawyers stab 2 lawyers, & bar exam scores way down

Filed under: Business, Econonics, Education, Law Enforcement, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 3:15 pm

ABA Journal Weekly Newsletter

ABA Journal Weekly Newsletter Home Topics Magazine Blawgs Stay Connected

The Top Stories of the Week
November 14, 2014

Prominent attorney and wife stabbed in home invasion are identified; lawyer suspects are in custody

Nov 13, 2014, 7:52 am CST
A Message From Abacus Data Systems
12 Proven Ways the Cloud Helps Law Firms Do More With Less

Sep 4, 2014, 4:53 pm CDT
Study of chief legal officers finds more bad news for law firms

Nov 10, 2014, 8:49 am CST
Drop in nationwide bar exam scores is likely due to ‘less able’ test takers, memo says

Nov 11, 2014, 8:11 am CST
Posner researches Chabad online; Bauer explains his ‘religious inclinations’ concurrence

Nov 11, 2014, 5:45 am CST
Would-be condo developer sues residents who spoke out against project at city meeting

Nov 11, 2014, 10:35 am CST
Woman is in hot water over spilled-coffee claim against McDonald’s

Nov 11, 2014, 3:35 pm CST
Lawyer cites high-risk pregnancy in trial delay request; federal judge questions her travel plans

Nov 10, 2014, 7:36 am CST
How to curb the law firm exodus? Study looks at traits of those most likely to leave law practice

Nov 13, 2014, 5:45 am CST
Once described as ‘creepy’ in judge’s opinion, former Sedgwick partner says he’s been vindicated

Nov 10, 2014, 8:52 am CST
It’s unethical for prosecutors to lend out letterhead to debt collectors, ABA opinion says

Nov 12, 2014, 7:02 am CST
SCOTUS overturns ‘perplexing’ appellate decision, rules for cop asserting warrant exception

Nov 10, 2014, 9:55 am CST
Attack ads will target SCOTUS as ‘least accountable’ branch of government

Nov 12, 2014, 9:25 am CST
Unconscious woman with medical insurance is taken to out-of-network hospital, owes $50K

Nov 12, 2014, 5:20 pm CST
Jail escapee eludes detection for 33 years because of typo

November 11, 2014

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

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

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

Sheriff Diehl would like to share an article with everyone:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These holds are designed to convince the person to comply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — 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

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.