Justplainbill's Weblog

January 16, 2015

FBI Confirms 19+ Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes in the US – What are your elected officials doing about this???? [nc]

Joseph R. John
Jan 15 at 4:51 PM

The FBI is aware of 19 Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes operating mTostly in remote and wooded areas in 15 states, however there may be as many as 35 affiliated compounds throughout the United States under development. The paramilitary communes are training indigenous “home grown” Muslim converts; they are Islamic enclaves were residents live under Sharia Law. The communes are gated no-go zones with armed guards at the entrance; they are off limits to non-Muslims; Police tend to avoid the enclaves. A shadowy Pakistan-based group, Jamaat al-Fuqra, and its main US front group, Muslims of America, Inc. (MOA) operate the communes and controls the paramilitary training.

The leader of all the communes is Pakistani cleric, Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, who move to the US in 1979, when he began development of the Islamic Paramilitary Commune network. Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani was investigated by the Pakistani Government for possible involvement in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, and he encourages members of the commune to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training.

Headquarters for the Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes is in Islamberg, New York. The Islamic Paramilitary Communes trains and radicalizes young men and women; they are trained in the use of small arms, strangulation techniques, and military tactics. In 1992 the Islamic Paramilitary Training Commune in Buena Vista, CO was raided and shut down by Law Enforcement, previously the Islamic Training Commune in Baladulla, CA was raided and shut down by Law Enforcement in 1991.

Most of the recruits living and training in the Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes are African-Americans who converted to Islam while doing time in state and federal prisons. There have been run-ins with the law involving murder and financial scheming as far back as the 1990s. In 2007, the FBI documented that members of Jamaat al-Fuqra were involved in at least 10 murders, one disappearance, three fire bombings, one attempted fire bombing, two explosive bombings, and one attempted explosive bombing. The below listed articles provides additional information.

Why would the Federal government allow terrorist training camps to exist on US soil, where the occupants are taught to execute military style attacks. The way to eliminate theses Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes that are a major National Security threat, is to have the US Senate and the US House Intelligence Committees designate Jamaat al-Fuqra and its main US front group, Muslims of America, Inc. as terrorist groups that are a threat to the National Security Interest of the United States. If that were done the remaining Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes could be closed as the tow communes were shut down in 1991 1nd 1992. Would Pakistan allow the United States to set up Paramilitary Training Camps in Pakistan. Politically correctness pushed by the Obama administration in the media, in federal government bureaucracies, in the Congress, in the FBI, in the CIA, and in other Intelligence agencies is responsible for allowing this dagger thrust to remain aimed at the heart of the security of the United States. .

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


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



22 terror camps verified inside U.S.

Groups fly under radar as Congress seems unconcerned

Leo Hohmann

Leo Hohmann is a news editor for WND. He has been a reporter and editor at several suburban newspapers in the Atlanta and Charlotte, North Carolina, areas and also served as managing editor of Triangle Business Journal in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Last week’s brazen attack by a “home-grown” terrorist cell in France that targeted the staff of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has drawn renewed interest in potential cells operating inside the United States.

And there are many.

The FBI is aware of at least 22 paramilitary Islamic communes in the U.S., operated by the shadowy Pakistan-based group Jamaat al-Fuqra and its main U.S. front group, Muslims of America Inc.

With U.S. headquarters in Islamberg, New York, the group headed by Pakistani cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani operates communes in mostly remote areas of California, Georgia, South Carolina, New York, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, Michigan, Tennessee and other states.

The FBI describes the MOA compound in Texas, called Mahmoudberg, as an enclave and “communal living site.” Located in Brazoria County along County Road 3 near Sweeny, Texas, it was discovered a couple of years ago by the FBI through a tip from an informant in New York.

The Texas commune, in a heavily wooded area, is estimated by a local resident to encompass about 25 acres. It dates back to the late 1980s, the resident said, which is confirmed by the FBI documents previously reported on by WND.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/01/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-usa.jpg

Graphic courtesy ConservativePapers.com

Graphic courtesy ConservativePapers.com

Pamela Geller, author of the Atlas Shrugs blog and the book “Stop the Islamization of America,” has been following the militant training compounds since 2007.

Gilani’s group operates a slick website in which a female narrator in one promo video waxes beautifully about how the group has rescued many young Americans from a life a crime, drugs and poverty. The group claims to focus on a ministry to “indigenous American Muslims.” One would never guess from the video that the group trains young men and women in the use of small arms and military tactics.

Most of the recruits living at these communes are African-Americans who converted to Islam while doing hard time in state or federal prisons, Geller says. They have operated “under the not-so-watchful eye” of the FBI since the early 1980s, she says, but few Americans are aware of their existence all these years later.

“Probably they haven’t been raided because Jamaat al-Fuqra is not listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. government and because there is a great reluctance among government and law enforcement agencies across the board, no matter who is president, to appear to be anti-Muslim,” Geller told WND. “These compounds say they’re peaceful Muslim communities, and the government wants to give the impression that such things can exist in the U.S. without any trouble.”

Indeed, MOA has operated freely under the watch of every president since Ronald Reagan. The group’s leader, Gilani, moved to America from Pakistan in 1979 and has been developing his network of communes ever since. He was once investigated by the Pakistani government for possible involvement in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Some reports say he has as many as 35 affiliated compounds throughout the U.S., although only about 22 of the sites have been verified.

There have been run-ins with the law involving murder and financial scheming back in the 1990s.

In 1991, after a MOA bomb plot in Toronto was foiled, a federal search warrant for three suspects was issued and a nearly 45-acre compound about 70 miles south of Dallas was raided. The location of the compound corresponds to a reference in an FBI document obtained by the Clarion Project that says about seven MOA members purchased property near Corsicana, Texas.

Federal officials found four mobile homes; three military, general-purpose tents; and six vehicles. Also discovered were loose ammunition, books on counter-terrorism techniques and weaponry and various items with “Jamaat Fuqra Land” written on them.

Another compound in Buena Vista, Colorado, was raided and shut down by state authorities in 1992. But there have been no raids on any of the encampments since the 1990s.

See the penetrating investigative film that exposed the subversive plans of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception”

Murder, firebombing

A 2007 FBI record states that members of the group have been involved in at least 10 murders, one disappearance, three firebombings, one attempted firebombing, two explosive bombings and one attempted bombing.

“The documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government,” the document states. “Members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Sheikh Gilani.”

The document also says Muslims of America is now “an autonomous organization which possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.”

Robert Spencer, author of the JihadWatch blog and several books about radical Islam, says the communes operate much like Europe’s “no-go zones,” which are Islamic enclaves where adherents live under Shariah law and are off limits to non-Muslims. Police also tend to avoid the enclaves.

“Yes, there are similarities. They’re both very hostile to outsiders and have a history of hostility to law enforcement, and there has been evidence that police are hesitant to go into these communes just as they are in Europe,” Spencer told WND.

They are different in that they operate mostly in remote rural areas of the U.S., unlike the urban no-go zones in Europe’s major cities.

A mystical sect of Islam

Gilani is a follower of Sufi Islam, an ancient mystical sect that believes in miracles, signs and wonders.

Some Middle East historians have described the Sufis as more moderate and peaceful than their Sunni or Shiite cousins, but this is a mistake in Spencer’s view.

The Chechen jihad against the Russians was led by Sufis from the 19th century until the influx of Wahhabi Arabs in the late 20th century.

And Hassan al-Banna, one of early leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, prescribed Sufi exercises for Brotherhood members, Spencer said.

“They’re more mystical, but that does not mean they reject the principles of violent jihad,” he said.

Muhammad al-Ghazali, a Persian philosopher and founder of the modern Sufi movement in the late 11th century, “was very clear and strong in speaking about the necessity of waging violent jihad,” Spencer said.

The FBI report on Muslims of America has been heavily redacted but clearly says the group has engaged in murders and fire bombings in the U.S.

“So that’s the FBI speaking not some Islamophobe,” Spencer said.

Gilani, who did not immediately respond to WND’s request for an interview, teaches that Muslims should be self-sustaining and separate from the broader American culture. But he also purports to teach that they foster “good relations with our Christian brethren,” according to the group’s website.

Watch MOA’s promotional video below, casting itself as a mystical sect concerned about humanitarian-based rescues of Americans trapped in a life of crime and drugs.

Christian Action Network did a documentary on the elusive Gilani in 2009. The documentary shows the Christians being greeted at the entrance to a compound in New York with tremendous hostility.

“Christian Network was told by the local cops not to go there and not to bother them but they went anyway, and neighbors said they heard firearms training and all kinds of things going on there,” Spencer said.

Check out the Christian Action Network’s acclaimed documentary, “Homegrown Jihad,” which blew the whistle on Muslims of America communes and what its recruits are taught.

According to their own video, the MOA groups are all about peace, miraculous sightings of Allah and the mystical healing of incurable diseases from AIDS to cancer. They also make a point of claiming to develop their brand of Islam within the framework of being good American citizens.

This is all written off by Spencer as “window dressing” and Geller agrees.

“All Islamic groups make similar claims – including the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates,” Geller said. “These claims have to be balanced against the group’s others words, and its actions. MOA members have been involved in murders and firebombings in the U.S.”

They have also been involved in violence against other Muslims.

The Islamic spiritual leader Rashad Kalifa was one of the victims. He was a Muslim scholar who translated the Quran into English and also developed a teaching based on a Quranic numbering system that marked him as a false prophet and a heretic by many Muslims, including those affiliated with the MOA. Kalifa was found stabbed 29 times in the kitchen of a Tuscon mosque in 1990. One member of MOA was found guilty of conspiracy in the killing and sentenced to 69 years.

“We should monitor them very closely. Hold hearings if necessary (in Congress),” Geller said. “Conduct a thorough investigation of each of these compounds with or without hearings.”

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., was one member of Congress who tried to get her colleagues to pay more attention to groups like MOA, but had little success.

“For years we’ve heard viable reports and seen photos and video tape suggesting Islamic jihadist training camps located in states such as Texas, Georgia and elsewhere. U.S. national law enforcement agencies have a duty to secure the safety of the American people – that is the number one duty of government,” Bachmann told WND.

But the federal government, and increasingly state and local governments, have been more concerned about offending Muslims and bowing to the wishes of Muslim Brotherhood front groups like Council on American-Islamic Relations, she said.

“For law enforcement to fail to investigate reports of U.S.-based terror training camps or to turn a blind eye to incitement activities in U.S.-based Islamic centers is to intentionally avoid a tragic reality of American life,” she said. “In retrospect, wouldn’t it have been better for the U.S. military to have acted on their evidence and suspicions of the Fort Hood shooter? Wouldn’t it have been better for the FBI to have investigated the Islamic center of Boston prior to the Boston marathon bombing?”

“The clues to see Islamic jihad were and are in front of our eyes,” Bachmann added. “If only our government had the political will to see and act upon them.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/22-terror-camps-verified-inside-u-s/#H1WIKmGzo8MPYdJE.99


January 8, 2015

An Unavoidable Truth About Terrorism, by L. Neil Smith [nc]

An Unavoidable Truth About Terrorism
by L. Neil Smith

Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

When I boot up every morning, my “homepage” for at least twenty years has been The Drudge Report. I don’t possess broadcast television (I watch Netflix), so this morning I was surprised by screaming headlines concerning some homicidal loonie taking over a chocolate shop full of hostages in downtown Syndney, Australia, in the name of Allah.

I followed the story to the online Daily Mail, which was full of the same photographs, enormous and in full color, we’ve all seen a thousand times before: the idiot himself, the religious and political slogans, mostly written (one wonders why) in an alphabet I can’t read, terrified hostages, relieved when they had escaped, a splash or two of blood {“If it bleeds, it leads.”) and what seemed like hundreds of government tough-guy typess, all carrying automatic weapons—M-16s—standing around, waiting for their glorious leaders to get off the pot.

Three people died before it was over, two of them unnecessarily. My first thought was that it was the fault of Australian legislators, and the morally lazy voters who offer them support, who stripped the Southern Continent of its personal weaponry—brutally violating a thousand-year-old tradition among English-speaking peoples—and leaving it helpless before genetic culls like this. Speaking plainly, this asshole should have died the instant he opened his mouth about taking over the shop, at the hands of the barista, armed with a .45 automatic.

And hundreds of millions of decent, productive, nonviolent Muslims around the world wouldn’t have to go on taking the rap for jerks like him.

I also knew it was time to declare that the dangerous delusion which has been destroying Western Society is over. Peace is neither won nor maintained by the unarmed. Clearly, government cannot—will not—protect us; we must protect ourselves. I was reminded recently that I once said that terrorism is decentralized. It has no leader. It has no center. It’s a diffuse phenomenon, best dealt with by diffuse means: in this country, that means hundreds of millions of armed individuals.

Terrorism is the kind pf problem that can’t be solved by a handful of heavily-armed thugs, prancing around in their military fat-suits, but by the average suburban housewife—multiplied by a hundred million—with three small kiddies in tow and a .380 automatic in her purse.

Self-defense is a wholly individual bodily function tha can no more be delegated to somebody else—especially to the thumb-fumbling government—than can going to the bathroom, eating, or making love. If the individual people of the United States, Canada, Great Britain (or the United Kingdom—I’m unaware the distinction), Australia, New Zealand and any territories associated with them, were to arm themselves, even with .22s and .25s, that would be an end to terrorism.

(Yes, yes, I know there would still be bombs, poison gas, and various biological and radiological threats. Those are different problems, every one of them with different soutions. Want another essay?)

The simple change that I propose would not be unaccomanied by screaming, wailing, hair-tearing, and tooth-gnashing by the whining babies who have made this mess. Every proposal they make, every law they pass and enforce only make it easier for hobgoblins like this one in Sydney to have their way, to get their fifteen minutes of fame. Those who oppose what I am calling “ballistic democracy” are nothing more than knowing, willing enablers and accessories to terrorism and mass-murder.

The king of them all, multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg is nothing more than a jumped-up Charles Manson, with a haircut and necktie.

In 1776, the great economist Adam Smith wrote that, if only each individual looked out for his own interests, and minded his own business, a nation would prosper as if guided by an “Invisible Hand”. It is our task now to make sure that the Invisible Hand has a gun in it.

January 4, 2015

MO Elected Official threatens whites [c]

[“White Privilege?” Who does she think paid for her education? Her “Affirmative Action?” Her NAACP privileges? What idiot thought up this new taxpayer oppression? Whatever happened to the democracy in Democrat?]

Elected Missouri Democrat threatens voters over white privilege on Twitter

January 4, 2015 12:01 AM MST
• Facebook
• Twitter
• More
• Comment

Democrat state Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal issues racist threat to voters on Twitter.
YouTube/Screengrab/Nicole Gipson
On Saturday, Maria Chappelle-Nadal, a Democrat serving in the Missouri state Senate whose district includes Ferguson, issued what many took to be a racist threat against white people on her Twitter feed. Her message, while apparently escaping the notice of local media outlets, angered a number of people.
“LET ME BE CLEAR,” she screamed on Twitter. “When you exercise your #WhitePrivilege, don’t think I’m not going to remember. I will use it for the future. Uncomfortable?”
“The system has literally failed the people I represent,” she said hours later. “There is no hope that anything will change. We go through the motions (because) we have to.” She also said the country has failed. Ironically, the conservative blog Weasel Zippers observed, she made the comment while using an image of Communist dictator Fidel Castro as her background.
“If you r not a legislator representing #Ferguson & you have not communicated w me, yet u have a ‘resolution’, expect fire,” she said in another angry tweet. Several responded angrily to that message as well, calling her a racist and a bigot. One responded by telling her to quit having supporters direct violence at police officers.
“So, you are a racist & are saying as an elected official, you only represent select people,” one person said in response. Another person asked Chappelle-Nadal if she intends to round white people up and place them in internment camps.
“Does the nursing staff at the hospital you live at know you’re on their computers this late at night?” another person asked. “Let me be clear,” added another Twitter user. “THE VOTERS ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ will remember you when it comes to voting for you. You just burnt your future.”
On the same day Chappelle-Nadal issued her racist message, the Associated Press said legislation she is sponsoring would, if passed into law, narrow the instances when police officers may use deadly force. Her proposal would also require the state attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate deaths or injuries caused by police. Currently, those incidents are handled by the locally elected prosecuting attorney. She also wants uniformed officers to wear cameras and believes institutional racism was behind the August shooting of Michael Brown.
This is not the first time Chappelle-Nadal has made controversial remarks. At one point, she accused police of purposely planning and executing the violence in Ferguson. But she changed her tune in November, when she told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell the looting and burning taking place in Ferguson was “our race war.”
“Not only has this Mike Brown movement revealed the true intentions of people in police departments across the state, but I have to tell you that there has been systematic racism, institutionally in state government for decades, including my own state party,” she said. “People are angry, and they are hurt, and they’re trying to figure out: how are they going to receive justice?”
“I have to tell you, this is St. Louis’ race war,” she added. “We didn’t have a race war like other cities throughout the country. This is our race war.”

December 31, 2014

Confessions of a Public Defender, Michael Smith Esq., from “Face to Face with Race” [nc]

It may help explain Ferguson. This was one of the stories in Face to Face with Race.


Confessions of a Public Defender

Michael Smith, American Renaissance, May 9, 2014

Still liberal after all these years.

I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.

I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.

As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me.

The media invariably sugarcoat black behavior. Even the news reports of the very crimes I dealt with in court were slanted. Television news intentionally leaves out unflattering facts about the accused, and sometimes omits names that are obviously black. All this rocked my liberal, tolerant beliefs, but it took me years to set aside my illusions and accept the reality of what I see every day. I have now served thousands of blacks and their families, protecting their rights and defending them in court. What follow are my observations.

Although blacks are only a small percentage of our community, the courthouse is filled with them: the halls and gallery benches are overflowing with black defendants, families, and crime victims. Most whites with business in court arrive quietly, dress appropriately, and keep their heads down. They get in and get out–if they can–as fast as they can. For blacks, the courthouse is like a carnival. They all seem to know each other: hundreds and hundreds each day, gossiping, laughing loudly, waving, and crowding the halls.

When I am appointed to represent a client I introduce myself and explain that I am his lawyer. I explain the court process and my role in it, and I ask the client some basic questions about himself. At this stage, I can tell with great accuracy how people will react. Hispanics are extremely polite and deferential. An Hispanic will never call me by my first name and will answer my questions directly and with appropriate respect for my position. Whites are similarly respectful.

A black man will never call me Mr. Smith; I am always “Mike.” It is not unusual for a 19-year-old black to refer to me as “dog.” A black may mumble complaints about everything I say, and roll his eyes when I politely interrupt so I can continue with my explanation. Also, everything I say to blacks must be at about the third-grade level. If I slip and use adult language, they get angry because they think I am flaunting my superiority.

At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports. Blacks are unable to understand that I do not yet have answers to all of their questions, but that I will by a certain date. They live in the here and the now and are unable to wait for anything. Usually, by the second meeting with the client I have most of the police reports and understand their case.

Unlike people of other races, blacks never see their lawyer as someone who is there to help them. I am a part of the system against which they are waging war. They often explode with anger at me and are quick to blame me for anything that goes wrong in their case.

Black men often try to trip me up and challenge my knowledge of the law or the facts of the case. I appreciate sincere questions about the elements of the offense or the sentencing guidelines, but blacks ask questions to test me. Unfortunately, they are almost always wrong in their reading, or understanding, of the law, and this can cause friction. I may repeatedly explain the law, and provide copies of the statute showing, for example, why my client must serve six years if convicted, but he continues to believe that a hand-written note from his “cellie” is controlling law.

The risks of trial

The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.

Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

Prosecutors are delighted when a black defendant takes the stand. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, the defense usually gets to cross-examine the black victim, who is likely to make just as bad an impression on the stand as the defendant. This is an invaluable gift to the defense, because jurors may not convict a defendant—even if they think he is guilty—if they dislike the victim even more than they dislike the defendant.

Most criminal cases do not go to trial. Often the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, and the chances of conviction are high. The defendant is better off with a plea bargain: pleading guilty to a lesser charge and getting a lighter sentence.

The decision to plea to a lesser charge turns on the strength of the evidence. When blacks ask the ultimate question—”Will we win at trial?”—I tell them I cannot know, but I then describe the strengths and weaknesses of our case. The weaknesses are usually obvious: There are five eyewitnesses against you. Or, you made a confession to both the detective and your grandmother. They found you in possession of a pink cell phone with a case that has rhinestones spelling the name of the victim of the robbery. There is a video of the murderer wearing the same shirt you were wearing when you were arrested, which has the words “In Da Houz” on the back, not to mention you have the same “RIP Pookie 7/4/12” tattoo on your neck as the man in the video. Etc.

If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame you. “You ain’t workin’ fo’ me.” “It like you workin’ with da State.” Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets. It is my firm belief many black are unable to discuss the evidence against them rationally because they cannot view things from the perspective of others. They simply cannot understand how the facts in the case will appear to a jury.

This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.

My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

No fathers

As a public defender, I have learned many things about people. One is that defendants do not have fathers. If a black even knows the name of his father, he knows of him only as a shadowy person with whom he has absolutely no ties. When a client is sentenced, I often beg for mercy on the grounds that the defendant did not have a father and never had a chance in life. I have often tracked down the man’s father–in jail–and have brought him to the sentencing hearing to testify that he never knew his son and never lifted a finger to help him. Often, this is the first time my client has ever met his father. These meetings are utterly unemotional.

Many black defendants don’t even have mothers who care about them. Many are raised by grandmothers after the state removes the children from an incompetent teenaged mother. Many of these mothers and grandmothers are mentally unstable, and are completely disconnected from the realities they face in court and in life. A 47-year-old grandmother will deny that her grandson has gang ties even though his forehead is tattooed with a gang sign or slogan. When I point this out in as kind and understanding way as I can, she screams at me. When black women start screaming, they invoke the name of Jesus and shout swear words in the same breath.

Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.

The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.

The mothers and grandmothers do not seem to be able to imagine and understand the consequences of going to trial and losing. Some–and this is a shocking reality it took me a long time to grasp–don’t really care what happens to the client, but want to make it look as though they care. This means pounding their chests in righteous indignation, and insisting on going to trial despite terrible evidence. They refuse to listen to the one person–me–who has the knowledge to make the best recommendation. These people soon lose interest in the case, and stop showing up after about the third or fourth court date. It is then easier for me to convince the client to act in his own best interests and accept a plea agreement.

Part of the problem is that underclass black women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different black men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work. I do not see this among whites, Hispanics, or any other people.

The black men who become my clients also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support. When I learn that my 19-year-old defendant does not work or go to school, I ask, “What do you do all day?” He smiles. “You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

If you tell a black to dress properly for trial, and don’t give specific instructions, he will arrive in wildly inappropriate clothes. I represented a woman who was on trial for drugs; she wore a baseball cap with a marijuana leaf embroidered on it. I represented a man who wore a shirt that read “rules are for suckers” to his probation hearing. Our office provides suits, shirts, ties, and dresses for clients to wear for jury trials. Often, it takes a whole team of lawyers to persuade a black to wear a shirt and tie instead of gang colors.

From time to time the media report that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population. This is supposed to be an outrage that results from unfair treatment by the criminal justice system. What the media only hint at is another staggering reality: recidivism. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians.


Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

At one time our office was looking for a motto that defined our philosophy. Someone joked that it should be: “Doesn’t everyone deserve an eleventh chance?”

I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.

My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.

December 29, 2014

Race Mongers All, by Sylvia Thompson [nc]

Sylvia Thompson column
Race mongers all, with blood on their hands

Sylvia Thompson
Sylvia Thompson
December 28, 2014

President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and race-hustler Al Sharpton are most definitely complicit in the recent deaths of two New York City police officers. I refuse to listen to the blather that says otherwise. These four race mongers set the stage for the hateful act committed by Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the murderer. Furthermore, I reject the playing down of this hater’s guilt by branding him “mentally unstable.” He was a typical hateful black person spawned by the Left’s decades-long campaign to brainwash American blacks.

Police officers across the country are rightfully enraged at these despicable men, wielding their enormous political power against the entire law enforcement community. Shunning de Blasio is the least these officers could do to show the leftist mayor how much they despise him. All of America should despise all four of these men.

That said, I focus this commentary on the incredible naivety of so many pundits, such as Greta Van Susteren’s. The pundits are puzzled by Obama’s and Holder’s lack of a convincing response to the murders. These two men, in their positions of authority, refuse to make any genuine attempts to quell the hatred that spawned Brinsley’s murderous scheme, which is why they are culpable.

Classic liberals (and I consider Ms. Van Susteren one of them) are completely clueless when it comes to assessing black behavior. That naivety is what accounts, in my view, for the assumption that most of us blacks are in need of their protection and guidance. It is a condescending attitude, but many of them are completely ignorant of how they come across. I learned this fact over the years, which is why I ignore classic liberals. I follow closely, however, the diabolical leftists. Failure to understand leftism is dangerous.

This naivety also explains why many pundits and educated white Americans are baffled over Obama’s choice of a character, such as Al Sharpton, to be a legitimate representative of black America. It requires an understanding of black elitism to comprehend this behavior. As a non-elite, I have found that black elites, like their counterparts in other ethnic groups, are adept at using people whom they perceive to be beneath them to do their bidding. Blacks of Sharpton’s character are ripe for manipulation. They possess little in intellect and they crave great power. They acquire a perceived power in being near the powerful.

Obama and Holder, and all of their ilk, know that some activities (such as street rabble-rousing) are beneath them. Therefore, they plant the seeds of hatred; Sharpton and his ilk stir up the soil so that the seeds will grow. They provide the poison; the Sharptons stir it into the water and encourage blacks to drink up. In Obama’s eyes, Sharpton is merely a tool.

Greta Van Susteren laments that Obama does not approach blacks such as Senator Tim Scott to assist with issues of race. Simply stated, Senator Scott cannot be used.

Sharpton may well understand this thinly vailed disdain, and it could be that a mutual “using” is taking place. The elitist using the despised black of “the other class” to foment unrest and hatred, as part of the Left’s grand plan to destroy America, and the lower-classed hustler gaining a level of recognition that the circumstances of his birth denied him. Hustlers are skilled manipulators in their own right, and Sharpton has many years of experience under his belt.

We often hear pundits of both races decrying “America still has racism and something has to be done about it.” That excuse is used to further the Left’s agenda of “transforming” (meaning “destroying”) America. Newsflash: We will never be completely rid of racist thinking until Almighty God removes it from the flawed psyche of those who refuse to let go of it. And He will indeed do that, in due time.

Meanwhile, I truly hope that more white Americans will come to an understanding that this whipping rod of “perpetual racism” is a ploy. People on the Left use it because it works. The solution is that Americans who are not racist must stop allowing the Left to use the ploy against them. Reject it; call it out for what it is – a pernicious scheme.

I offer a fervent plea to my fellow Americans of any color who are really sick and tired of it all – stop listening to the race baiters. Even the ones who sound reasonable or wear white collars of the clergy, but will not task blacks with any of the responsibility for their circumstances. The plight of disadvantaged black Americans will not improve until they remove themselves from the yoke of leftist liberalism. They must begin to take personal responsibility for how they live, behave, and rear their children, as well as which leaders and educators they accept into their communities.

This rethinking needs to happen soon, because there will not always be race-baiting professed black leaders in control of this country. There will come a time when leaders will be in charge who are immune to overwrought cries of “racist” and “racism.” And we had better hope that they are decent men, because the game of “payback” will be detrimental if they choose to play it against us twelve percent of the American populace.

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

December 23, 2014

Micheal Brown, of Ferguson MO, in action

a clip of the gentle giant Michael Brown of Ferguson fame.


December 17, 2014

Must See, if necessary go to: face book, Jan Ziech, public

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

December 16, 2014

Garner Death Facts, by Bryan Fischer [nc]

Almost No Truth in Media Reports on Garner Death

By Bryan Fischer, American Family Association

It turns out that almost everything bleated out by the race-mongers and the low-information media about the Eric Garner tragedy has turned out to be wrong.

Eric Garner, a 43-year-old father of six, is dead. This is a tragedy, regardless of the circumstances. We rightly mourn with his wife and children. They will never see their husband and father again, and that should break everyone’s heart.

When we witness a gut-rending tragedy like this, we want to know ! who is responsible. Who is to blame for depriving this family of its husband and father? As the facts emerge, it becomes increasingly clear that, as tragic as this situation is, in the end the culpability for Eric Garner’s death rests with… Eric Garner.

To put it as simply as possible, if Mr. Garner had not broken the law and then resisted arrest, he would be alive today.

While protesters are trying to make this about race, it must be noted that the police showed up in response to complaints from black business owners. The arrest was ordered by a black officer, and the arrest itself was supervised by a black officer, a female sergeant.

A crackdown on the sale of illegal, untaxed cigarettes – called “loosies” since they are sold in singles rather than in packs – had been ordered just days before Garner’s arrest by the highest ranking black police officer in the NYPD, Philip Banks.

So a black officer ordered the crackdown, black business owners called for the arrest, a black officer ordered the arrest, and a black officer supervised the arrest itself. It’s also worth noting that the 23-member grand jury which refused to indict the arresting officer included nine non-white members. Ask yourself how many of those facts you have heard from any member of the race-obsessed, low-information media.

Garner had been arrested 31 times, and eight of those had been for selling loosies. His rap sheet goes back decades and includes arrests for assault and grand larceny.

At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with multiple offenses, including illegal sale of cigarettes, marijuana possession, false impersonation and driving without a license.

So he certainly knew the law, knew he was in violation, and knew doing it again would likely lead to his arrest, a drill he’d been through dozens of times before.

There were 228,000 misdemeanor arrests in New York City in 2013, the last year for which figures are available. All of them put together led to precisely zero deaths.

Garner, all six-foot, three inches and 350 pounds of him, clearly resisted arrest, swatting away the arresting officer’s hands while loudly exclaiming, “Don’t touch me!” After he was taken to the ground, he growled, “This ends here!” That could be taken any number of ways, but in the heat of the moment it certainly could be read reasonably as a declaration that he was going to fight arrest until he was subdued by compelling force.

The patrolman who wrestled Garner to the ground, Daniel Pantaleo, did it by the book, using a takedown maneuver every policeman is taught at the academy. He did not, in fact, use a chokehold, which is defined by the NYPD as “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.” Now Garner was clearly able to breathe, since that’s the only way he could repeatedly say, “I can’t breathe.”

The autopsy explicitly declares that there was no injury to Garner’s windpipe or to his neck bones. This was a wrestler’s headlock, not a ch! okehold. (As a sidenote, chokeholds, while contrary to police policy, are not in fact illegal in the state of New York when an officer uses one to restrain a resisting subject. They are not even illegal in New York City, at the insistence of liberal mayor Bill DeBlasio.) Patrolman Pantaleo was not indicted for the simple reason that he did nothing wrong.

Garner’s death likely should be attributed to the fact that he himself suffered from severe asthma, something the arresting officers had no reason to know. According to Garner’s friends, his asthma was severe enough that he was forced to quit his job as horticulturist for the city. He wheezed when he talked and could not walk so much as a city block without having to stop to rest. Garner “couldn’t breathe” because of his asthma, not because of a chokehold.

In addition, he suffered from heart disease, advanced diabetes, hypertension, obesity and sleep apnea. Contrary to public perception, he did not die on site, nor did he die of asphyxiation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance and was declared dead about an hour later at the hospital.

So it turns out that almost everything bleated out by the race-mongers and the low-information media has turned out to be wrong. As the wisest man who ever lived wrote 3,000 years ago, “The one who states his case first seems right until the other comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17).

Eric Garner and Michael Brown both fought the law, and the law won. In the end, they have no one to blame but themselves.

New York Post columnist Bob McMcanus concluded his column on Eric Garner this way:

“There are many New Yorkers – politicians, activists, trial lawyers, all the usual suspects – who will now seek to profit from a tragedy that wouldn’t have happened had Eric Garner made a different decision.

“He was a victim of himself. It’s just that simple.”

Bryan Fischer is director of issues analysis for the American Family Association. He hosts “Focal Point with Bryan Fischer” every weekday on AFR Talk from 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. (Central).

December 10, 2014

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

Joseph R. John
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


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

December 8, 2014

The Economist Explains Grand Juries [nc]

The Economist explains
Explaining the world, daily
Sponsored by GE Logo

Latest The Economist explains
All latest updates

The Economist explains
How a grand jury works
Dec 7th 2014, 23:50 by R.W.


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]

Joseph R. John
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


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

Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 8:34 PM
To: Joseph R. John

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.

December 1, 2014

Witness 10, The Washington Post [see prior comment on the law] Michael Brown/Ferguson MO

Witness 10 proves Darren Wilson had a reasonable belief he needed to shoot Michael Brown
By Paul Cassell December 1 at 2:57 AM

Missouri law allows a person to use deadly force defending himself when he has a “reasonable belief” he needs to use deadly force. The law goes on to define a reasonable belief as one based on “grounds that could lead a reasonable person in the same situation to the same belief.” Unsurprisingly, Officer Darren Wilson testified to the grand jury that he reasonably believed he needed to use deadly force to defend himself against Michael Brown. But the clinching argument on this point is that other reasonable people — i.e., some credible eyewitnesses — agreed with Wilson.

In previous posts, I have discussed how the grand jury process was fair, how Officer Wilson’s testimony covered the bases of Missouri self-defense law, and how the physical evidence bolstered his credibility. In this post, I turn to eyewitness testimony — which the Post has helpfully collected in this story. It would be difficult to discuss in detail the testimony of all of several dozen eyewitnesses. But a defendant raising self-defense need not show that his interpretation was the only one; rather he need only show that it was a reasonable one — i.e., a conclusion a reasonable person could reach based on all the facts.

Against that backdrop, I want to review in detail the testimony of one seemingly reasonable and neutral observer — Witness Number 10. If his objective assessment was that Officer Wilson acted appropriately, that would be strong evidence demonstrating Wilson’s belief was reasonable.

Witness 10 told the grand jury that he was outside while working a job on Canfield Drive when two men (later identified as Mike Brown and Dorion Johnson) walked by him. He then was able to see the events in question with a direct line of sight. Witness 10 saw the struggle in Wilson’s police car — with Brown confronting Wilson inside the car:

I just see Mr. Brown inside the police officer’s window. It appeared as [though] some sort of confrontation was taking place. . . . [T]hat took place for seconds, I’m not sure how long. . . . And one shot, the first shot was let loose and after the first shot, Mike Brown came out of the window and took off running. So my initial thought was that wow, did I just witness this young guy kill a police officer (grand jury testimony, Vol. 6, page 165, line 23, hereafter cited by just page and line number).

Witness 10 elaborated about Brown’s position: “Half of his body, his feet was still planted on the ground, his upper body was inside the window in a leaning motion inside the window, his upper body was inside” (169:21). And while the witness could not hear what was being said inside the car, “it just looked out of the norm with somebody being leaned over inside the police officer’s car” (171:15). Witness 10 then explained that, after the firing of a shot, Michael Brown and his friend took off down Canfield Drive. Officer Wilson remained in his car briefly, and then pursued with his gun drawn — but not firing at Brown (177:15). Eventually Brown stopped.
Games – Click Here for More!

According to Witness 10, Brown then turned and ran “full charge” toward Wilson:

He [Mike Brown] stopped. He did turn, he did some sort of body gesture, I’m not sure what it was, but I know it was a body gesture. And I could say for sure he never put his hands up after he did his body gesture, he ran towards the officer full charge. The officer fired several shots at him and to give an estimate, I would say roughly around five to six shots was fired at Mike Brown. Mike Brown was still coming towards the office and at this point I’m thinking, wow, is this officer missing Mike Brown at this close of a range. Mike Brown continuously came forward in the charging motion and at some point, at one point he started to slow down and he came to a stop. And when he stopped, that’s when the officer ceased fire and when he ceased fire[], Mike Brown started to charge once more at him. When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say, give an estimate of three to four shots. And that’s when Mike Brown finally collapsed . . . . (166:21-167:18).

With regard to the body gesture, Witness 10 explained: “All I know is it was not in a surrendering motion of I’m surrendering, putting my hands up or anything, I’m not sure. If it was like a shoulder shrug or him pulling his pants up, I’m not sure. I really don’t want to speculate [about] things . . . .” (180:5). But “[i]mmediately after he [Brown] did his body gesture, he comes for force, full charge at the officer” (180:16). Ultimately, in the view of Witness 10, the officer’s life was in jeopardy when Brown charged him from close range (206:4).

Under Missouri law, this testimony by itself (even apart from any other evidence) would have provided a sound basis for the grand jury to decline to return any charges against Wilson. A Missouri appellate decision approves the following jury instruction allowing deadly force when supported by a “reasonable belief” in the need to use such force:

In order for a person lawfully to use force in self-defense, he must reasonably believe he is in imminent danger of harm from the other person. He need not be in actual danger but he must have a reasonable belief that he is in such danger. . . . But a person is not permitted to use deadly force, that is, force that he knows will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury, unless he reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. And, even then, a person may use deadly force only if he reasonably believes the use of such force is necessary to protect himself.

Of particular importance for this post, Missouri law defines a “reasonable belief” as one that would be held by a reasonable person knowing the same facts:

As used in this instruction, the term “reasonable belief” means a belief based on reasonable grounds, that is, grounds that could lead a reasonable person in the same situation to the same belief. This depends upon how the facts reasonably appeared. It does not depend upon whether the belief turned out to be true or false.

Witness 10 was a neutral observer who saw all the same things that Officer Wilson saw (albeit from a safe distance). He concluded that Wilson’s life was in jeopardy. This would seem to be very strong evidence that a reasonable person could reasonably conclude that deadly force was required to protect against 300-pound Mike Brown’s “full on charge.”

Moreover, Witness 10′s version of the facts is quite credible. Witness 10 saw a “confrontation” and Mike Brown’s DNA was later found inside the car. Indeed, witness 10 was afraid that Brown might have killed the police officer inside the car when he heard the firing of a single shot. (The ballistics evidence shows two shots were fired at the car, so that is a point of difference.) Witness 10 then describes Wilson pursuing Brown but not firing any shots along the way. Here again, the ballistics tracks this testimony.

November 26, 2014

The Legalities of Shooting People, by Correia [nc]


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 21, 2014

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act 1952 [nc]

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

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

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

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

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

November 18, 2014

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

[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.


Examples: [Collected via e-mail, 2006]


Attributed to the LA Times, June 2002:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(All 10 from the Los Angeles Times)

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


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

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

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

29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 11, 2014

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

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]

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

October 31, 2014

ABA article: Municipalities vs Homeless in Venice CA [nc]


In-Depth Reporting
Cities get mired in civil rights disputes…

Cover Story
Cities get mired in civil rights disputes in trying to deal with growing homeless populations

Posted Nov 01, 2014 05:00 am CDT

By Lorelei Laird
house on venice beach

Photo of Mark Ryavec by Kyle Monk.
Mark Ryavec lives in a beautifully restored duplex in Venice Beach, the artsy beachfront neighborhood of Los Angeles.

He’s about half a mile from the shore and even closer to Abbot Kinney Boulevard, a trendy artery filled with pricey restaurants and boutiques. Depending on which real estate website you consult, his improvements and recent gentrification in the area have pushed the property’s value to roughly three or four times what he paid for it in 1989.

Across the street, one of his sometime neighbors lives in a van. Drinking coffee in his front yard, Ryavec watches a young man slip out. Shortly afterward, the man comes back with a car that jump-starts the van. This is necessary because it’s a street sweeping day and the space ceases to be legal at noon. This, Ryavec says, means the van-dweller will take up a parking spot that a resident could be using—in a parking-poor neighborhood that gets 16 million visitors a year.

But this is just the beginning of Ryavec’s problems with homelessness in Venice Beach. A much smellier problem is that people living in vehicles have limited access to bathrooms. As a result, he says, vehicle-dwellers routinely relieve themselves behind million-dollar homes.

“There’s a street down there, and they’ll have two or three [vehicle-dwellers], and it’s like their alley is the one that’s consistently used as a toilet,” he says. Homeowners “used to call the police all the time … and now they can’t do that. Unless they snap a photo of them in the process —[and] who wants to stake that kind of thing out?”

Homeless Camper in parking lot, Venice Beach

A homeless camper in a Venice Beach, California, parking lot. Photo by Jennifer Kelton.

Ryavec’s neighbors can no longer call the police without proof of public elimination because of Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles. On June 19, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance forbidding using a vehicle “as living quarters either overnight, day by day or otherwise.” The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, overturning a district court’s summary judgment ruling.

“Section 85.02 is broad enough to cover any driver in Los Angeles who eats food or transports personal belongings in his or her vehicle,” wrote Judge Harry Pregerson. “Yet it appears to be applied only to the homeless. The vagueness doctrine is designed specifically to prevent this type of selective enforcement.”

This displeases Ryavec, president of a group called the Venice Stakeholders Association that is pushing for more city intervention in Venice’s homeless problem. It’s had some success; citations for vehicle-dwellers grew substantially after increased neighborhood complaints.

But the courts have complicated things. Desertrain is the third in a line of 9th Circuit cases striking down LA’s homelessness laws. In 2012, the court ruled in Lavan v. City of Los Angeles that seizing and destroying the personal possessions of homeless people, left on sidewalks so their owners could go inside to do things like shower, violates the Fourth and 14th amendments. The city now must hold seized possessions for 90 days before destroying them.

And in 2006, the 9th Circuit ruled in Jones v. City of Los Angeles that it’s cruel and unusual to punish people for sitting, sleeping or lying on public roads at night. The resulting settlement required the city to permit sleeping on sidewalks from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. until an additional 1,250 units of supportive housing were built.

Carol Sobel on Venice Beach

Carol Sobel questions whether community leaders have the political will to advance long-term solutions to homelessness. Photo by Kyle Monk.

In all three cases, the plaintiffs’ attorneys included civil rights lawyer Carol Sobel, whose Santa Monica office is just over the Venice border and a few blocks from Venice’s “Skid Rose,” a stretch of Rose Avenue with a notorious homeless encampment.

“It is unlawful, it is immoral to put people in jail when there’s not enough shelter, in a city where everybody’s writing about the lack of housing,” says Sobel, a former ACLU Foundation attorney.

But for residents like Ryavec, the cases represent another lost tool for solving the problems homeless people bring to the neighborhood. In addition to parking and sanitation concerns, he notes that residents sometimes have a well-founded fear of violence, thanks to some high-profile crimes. These include a 2009 rape and murder by a transient with a past stint in a mental hospital and an incident last year when a transient drove a car onto the pedestrian-only beach boardwalk, killing an Italian honeymooner and injuring 16 others.

“What’s happened is the court keeps whittling away at the police’s powers to do anything when there is a problematic situation, to the point that the residents can’t do anything when you really have somebody scary,” Ryavec says.

man enjoying his coffee

Mark Ryavec is not enthused about recent court decisions that he believes have whittled “away at the police’s powers to do anything when there is a problematic situation.” Photo by Kyle Monk.

Though LA’s three trips to the 9th Circuit stand out, similar laws have been at issue across the United States.

And they’re on the rise. In a July study examining 187 U.S. cities, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, based in Washington, D.C., found a 119 percent increase since 2011 in city bans on sleeping in vehicles. The NLCHP also found a 25 percent increase in citywide laws against begging, a 60 percent increase in citywide camping bans and a 35 percent increase in citywide loitering or vagrancy laws. This doesn’t count laws that apply only to a specific district.

Similarly, Michael Stoops of the National Coalition for the Homeless says 53 cities had enacted or considered restrictions on feeding the homeless between January of 2013 and this past June. Over the last decade, Albuquerque, Dallas, Las Vegas, Orlando and Philadelphia have all been sued over feeding restrictions. (Los Angeles proposed such a law this year, but ultimately took no action.)

Jeremy Rosen, director of advocacy for the law center, believes more laws are being passed because more poverty is becoming visible.

“Why you’re seeing a whole lot more of them is because it’s actually occurring in a whole lot more places,” says Rosen of D.C., who is also a member of the ABA’s Commission on Homelessness and Poverty. “So the cities are seeing more of this than they ever saw before. They don’t like it and so they’re passing these laws rather than coming up with a productive way to deal with it.”

When sued, cities generally defend these laws by citing concerns that food, trash and human waste litter the streets; that a homeless presence will scare customers away from commercial areas; and that helping homeless people in place prevents them from seeking out social services that could be more beneficial. Before the 9th Circuit, Los Angeles argued that the Desertrain plaintiffs were unsafe in vehicles crowded with belongings, pets and garbage.

But Rosen is not so sure. He says taking a “criminal justice approach” suggests that the city’s concerns about public health are pretextual.

“Cities that use the criminal justice system are saying ‘If you stick around here, you’re going to go to jail,’ ” he says. “And that’s not a productive approach for people living outdoors.”

It’s not productive because criminalization tends to perpetuate homelessness rather than solve it, the NLCHP report says. People without homes have limited options for where they can perform basic life activities like eating and sleeping. Businesses don’t always let them in—a Venice homeless man wrote an essay for the Free Venice Beachhead blog this year about being asked to leave a Starbucks. And according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are more homeless people than available shelter beds in the U.S. As a result, homeless people may not be able to avoid breaking laws that make it a crime to sleep, eat or urinate outdoors.

Desertrain has roots in a push from Venetians like Ryavec for greater police intervention. Venice has long been known as a beach community for free spirits—and it’s always had a homeless population.


Bill Rosendahl foresees continued tension in Venice unless permanent housing options are developed. Photo by Kyle Monk.

“Venice is a magnet,” says former LA city councilman Bill Rosendahl, who represented the area before he retired in 2013. “Those who have issues—psychiatric issues, homeless issues—they’re just like any other person, attracted to the beach.”

Venice became even more of a magnet after the LAPD got the neighborhood’s 1990s gang problem under control. This brought in wealthier residents, as did the “Silicon Beach” group of tech companies clustered in LA’s beach communities. (Among others, Google’s LA offices are in Venice, not far from Skid Rose.)

Some perceive these newer residents as less tolerant of the homeless than longtime Venetians. Rosendahl strongly disputes this but says that “Venice has been more accommodating in the past.”

At the same time, the Los Angeles Times reported in February that younger and more aggressive people have moved into the homeless population, changing its character. Ten-year resident Jack Hoffman, a neighborhood activist like Ryavec, also believes methamphetamine has changed the homeless population. Some of these new people have not proved to be good neighbors. For example, an RV dumped its septic tank along Rose Avenue in 2010, requiring the city to send a hazardous materials cleanup crew.

homeless on the pier in Venice Beach

Photo by Jennifer Kelton.

The resulting community complaints brought more city pressure to bear on the area’s homeless. The city stepped up police presence and enforcement with an LAPD Venice Homelessness Task Force, instituted a beach curfew between midnight and 5 a.m., approved a ban on oversize vehicles in neighborhoods that asked for them, and originally supported the Venice Stakeholders Association’s fight with the California Coastal Commission for overnight parking restrictions. (The city dropped its support not long before former city attorney Carmen Trutanich left office in July 2013 after an unsuccessful re-election bid.) And LA started enforcing its 1983 ordinance forbidding living in vehicles, resulting in the citations challenged in Desertrain.

Venice residents are sharply divided on homeless issues, with some feeling threatened by the situation and others arguing that driving the homeless out changes something unique and important about Venice culture. Online debate can quickly get heated, with personal attacks on people like Ryavec and Sobel and the homeless themselves.

It spills over into the real world. In 2012, the city put a shipping container on the beach to store homeless people’s property while they slept at winter shelters. The container became a subject of fierce community debate. Eventually, someone sneaked extra padlocks onto it in the middle of the night. This required the city to cut them off, creating delays for homeless people trying to collect their things.

In January, Councilmember Mike Bonin told a Venice Neighborhood Council meeting that the container was required by the Lavan decision. He called for “a more civil discourse,” noting that his office had gotten numerous complaints about the container based on misinformation.

Though nothing is proven, some of the area’s homeless believe the debate also leads to violence. In May, someone broke all the windows in an inhabited camper shell near Penmar Park, according to the Venice Update and Free Venice Beachhead blogs. The next night, the blogs said, someone firebombed the camper shell as its owner, Ernest Roman, lay in bed. Roman escaped, but the fire destroyed his home and almost everything he owned. In July, the Los Angeles Fire Department confirmed that a vehicle fire at that time and location was being investigated as arson.

homeless in an alley in Venice Beach

Photo by Jennifer Kelton.


At a weekly dinner for the poor given by the First Baptist Church of Venice, vehicle-dweller Charles Moore said there are homeless people with 10, 15 or even 20 parking tickets. He said he watched a police officer pass up a chance to arrest such a person—but then issue yet another ticket, which Moore thought was an odd way to handle alleged lawbreaking.

Moore said he’d gotten four tickets himself since arriving in Venice about a month before. One was a parking ticket—which he said he’d paid because it was legitimate—and three other tickets for $197 each, which he planned to contest. One was for blocking the sidewalk; Moore said he was helping another man fix a bicycle at the time. Another was for jaywalking.

Other vehicle-dwellers at the dinner said they were given warnings during the crackdown on living in vehicles, but no tickets for living in a car. One said he was told he had to move if neighbors complained, but it wasn’t illegal to sleep in the car. (This was contradicted to some extent by testimony from the Desertrain plaintiffs, one of whom started sleeping on the sidewalk after police warned him not to sleep in his car.)

Another man parked on the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu for three months before returning to Venice. He said everyone in vehicles is “breathing a lot easier” after the Desertrain decision.

Moore claimed he was living in his car by choice and could pay the tickets. But for homeless people with very low incomes, the NLCHP report says, criminalization creates more barriers to ending homelessness. Arrests and citations generate fines they can’t pay, creating bench warrants later. A criminal record can mean being turned down for jobs and for public housing subsidies, which are crucial for housing very-low-income people. Going to jail can mean losing public benefits, a job or an opportunity. And losing belongings to arrest or confiscation can mean losing basic tools like identification, cellphones and medication.

Laws like these often violate the civil rights of the homeless, or sometimes (as in cases involving church groups giving out food) their advocates. Just as the ban on living in a vehicle was found unconstitutionally vague in Desertrain, vagrancy and loitering laws have also been struck down as vague, especially when defendants can point to uneven or arbitrary enforcement. Laws prohibiting public performance of basic life activities like sleeping can be struck down under the Eighth Amendment, if homeless people have nowhere else to perform those activities. That was the ruling in LA’s Jones case.

Laws permitting seizures of homeless people’s property can be struck down under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause and the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable seizures. These formed the basis of the 9th Circuit’s Lavan decision. The First Amendment right to freedom of speech prohibits blanket bans on panhandling. That was the holding of both the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th and the Cincinnati-based 6th circuits last year in Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville and Speet v. Schuette.

And organizations that feed the homeless have invoked their own First Amendment rights to freedom of religion or political speech. Over the past decade, federal district courts have often struck these laws down on religious freedom grounds, although the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit upheld Orlando’s restrictions in 2011 as a reasonable time, place or manner restriction on political speech.

These humanitarian and civil rights concerns are why the ABA House of Delegates passed Resolution 117 at the 2013 annual meeting, urging governments to “promote the human right to adequate housing for all through increased funding, development and implementation of affordable housing strategies and to prevent infringement of that right.” It was sponsored by nine ABA groups, including the ABA Commission on Homelessness and Poverty. The commission itself advocates for laws and policies to lift people out of homelessness, and it provides resources for advocates for the poorest Americans.

“The criminalization of homelessness is perhaps the least effective way to end homelessness and is a tremendous distraction from the real solutions to homelessness, which are housing and income for people in poverty,” says Antonia Fasanelli, immediate-past chair of the commission and executive director of the Homeless Persons Representation Project in Baltimore.

homeless asleep on the sidewalk, Venice Beach

Photo by Jennifer Kelton.

Perhaps most important for municipalities with limited budgets, letting homeless people cycle through jails and hospitals is actually more expensive to taxpayers than providing housing, research shows.

That’s because homelessness tends to lead to increased reliance on emergency medical services, as well as more dealings with the criminal justice system (as both victims and perpetrators).

A few localities have tried “housing first” models and documented considerable savings. One of the first such programs was the Albuquerque Heading Home initiative, which was launched in January 2011. The goal was to house some of the city’s toughest cases: chronically homeless people who had documented behavioral health and substance abuse problems. Those people are usually the most vulnerable within the homeless population—and use the most police and medical services. Combining a mixture of public and private funding, the program moved those individuals into housing and provided social workers to address their underlying problems.

After a year in the program, a University of New Mexico study found, clients were costing the public 31 percent less than they had the previous year—an average of $12,831.68 less per person. Those savings largely came from less use of emergency rooms, hospitals, jails and jail-based treatment programs. Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry said in June that the city saved $3.2 million over the three years of the program.

So why don’t more cities try it? Rosen suggests that the greater immediate cost of supportive housing might blind people to the long-term costs of overusing the criminal justice system.

“It requires a willingness and ability to make that upfront investment,” he says. “There’s a desire to find an immediate solution that doesn’t cost money, and so people turn to ‘Well, just arrest everyone.’ Of course, that does actually cost money.”

There have already been some efforts toward housing-first programs in Los Angeles County, although none directly sponsored by the city. One was Los Angeles County’s Project 50, which from 2007 to 2012 sought to permanently house 50 chronically homeless, vulnerable people on downtown LA’s notorious Skid Row. In the end, a county report says, the project housed 67 people and saved more money than its cost to taxpayers.

Also underway is the Home for Good initiative, a collaboration between the United Way of Greater Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, which seeks to end chronic and veteran homelessness by 2016. Program Associate Emily Bradley says it works closely with several area governments, including that of Los Angeles, and had housed 14,249 people through April.

The city itself has taken a softer approach. In 2010, when homelessness became a serious issue in Venice, then-councilman Rosendahl started Vehicles to Homes, a program that he later said moved about 100 people into stationary homes.

Rosendahl also wanted to establish a parking lot where vehicle-dwellers could park for the night legally and have access to social services, modeled after programs in Santa Barbara, California, and Eugene, Oregon. But Sobel says Rosendahl was stymied by community opposition to all three of the potential sites. (Rosendahl says a site near LAX is still under consideration.)

“This is the problem with homelessness in LA generally,” says Sobel. “There is not the political will to address the solutions; there is only the political will to put people in jail. And that doesn’t address anything.”

A similar problem arose when advocates for the homeless made plans to establish permanent supportive housing for homeless veterans at the VA campus in West Los Angeles. The land is expressly designated for veterans’ care, but it’s also near the expensive neighborhoods of Brentwood and Westwood, and some of those residents didn’t want the project nearby.

Advocates say those complaints caused government agencies to slow the project. Though the permanent supportive housing was announced in 2007, renovations on the three abandoned buildings chosen didn’t start until 2010. And the original federal funding allocated was enough for renovating only one of the buildings, Rosendahl says, with nothing left over for staffing. Rosendahl believes the city can’t solve its homelessness problems without greater funding and support from other levels of government. “Venice will continue to have tensions until we get permanent housing,” he says. “And we’re talking about tens of millions of dollars, and actually talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.”

homeless veteran in a wheelchair with an American Flag on Venice Beach, California

A homeless veteran displays his patriotism along the shores of Venice Beach. Photo by Jennifer Kelton.

At least some funding might be coming.

In July, Mayor Eric Garcetti pledged to join the Obama administration’s Mayors Challenge to End Veteran Homelessness, which advocates a housing-first approach. Garcetti was reportedly in talks to secure related federal funding.

There are also signs that the city is changing its day-to-day approach to homelessness. City officials said in July that the LAPD would reduce arrests on downtown’s Skid Row for petty offenses. And the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, an entity that coordinates homeless services for most of the county, has begun offering social services on Skid Row in combination with major street-cleaning efforts.

As for vehicle-dwellers, City Attorney Mike Feuer said in June that he wouldn’t appeal Desertrain. Instead, he said he would work with other city officials to write a new law that balances homeless civil rights with neighborhood quality-of-life issues.

But Sobel isn’t optimistic about those changes. As of August, she says, the 1,250 units of supportive housing ordered by the settlement in Jones were nearly built. In fact, she says the city even allocated general-fund money for that purpose in 2013. That means the city will soon no longer be enjoined from enforcing its law against sitting, sleeping or lying on sidewalks at night.

The city “went out of its way to speed it up … so that, as one of the council people said when they came out of closed session, they can return to enforcement,” Sobel says. It’s “not over, and they know they’re going to get sued again.”

This article originally appeared in the November 2014 issue of the ABA Journal with this headline: “Unwanted Guests: Trying to manage a growing homeless population, Los Angeles and other cities get mired in civil rights disputes.”

“Unwanted Guests,” November, should have described Mark Ryavec’s duplex as being built about 1905. The Los Angeles County assessor’s office lists that date and 1947. Ryavec says the house was built in 1907 and a two-bedroom structure in back was built in 1949.

Chicago teens tell how guns affected them and their neighborhoods

ABA Announcements
Filed under:
4th Circuit Court | 9th Circuit Court | 11th Circuit Court | States | First Amendment | Constitutional Law | Criminal Justice | Civil Rights | Real Estate & Property Law | Trials & Litigation | Government Law | Law Practice Management | Legislation & Lobbying | ABA | California | Criminal Procedure | Features | Verdicts & Settlements | Pro Bono | Executive Branch | Bar Associations | Business of Law
You might also like:

Scheme to defraud Mayer Brown nets 27-month sentence for former employee
Has the BigLaw recovery arrived? Revenue per lawyer is at a low point, when adjusted for inflation
Baker Donelson forms ‘policy affiliate’ to be led by former US senator
Ex-partner says he loved Geoffrey Fieger like a brother but couldn’t work with him
Avvo launches service providing on-demand legal advice for a fixed fee

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy. Flag comment for moderator.

September 23, 2014

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

loyalty to Israel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

child sacrifice.

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

Lloyd Levy


18 August 2014

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

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

September 22, 2014

Feds & CA grant illegals drivers licenses [c]

It took a while, but the federal government late last week finally signed off on the California Department of Motor Vehicles’ design for driver’s licenses for people in the country illegally.
The inevitable reaction to such accommodations is to say, deport them all. But that’s not going to happen. –

The cards, which will be issued beginning Jan. 1, will have the phrase “federal limits apply” on the front. The Department of Homeland Security rejected the initial design, which would have placed a small mark on the front and add to the back the sentence: “This card is not acceptable for official federal purposes.” So the new version will be less subtle than backers had hoped (Ted Rall explores that here, and in the cartoon above).

It’s a reasonable compromise. The editorial board last year endorsed the state’s move under AB60 to issue licenses to immigrants in the country illegally who learn the rules of the road and pass a driver’s test, among other requirements. The September editorial said:

“That would bring California in line with at least nine other states that have adopted similar measures. Since 1993, most immigrants living here illegally have been barred from obtaining California licenses (except for some young people who qualify for temporary federal work permits).

“Already, critics of AB 60 are arguing that providing driver’s licenses to people who are in the United States illegally rewards them for breaking the law. But that’s putting politics before common sense.

What “shadows”…?!?! They are getting Drivers Licenses for crying out loud. The only shadows they are hiding in are the ones provided by Lib blowhards!
at 2:04 PM September 22, 2014

Add a comment See all comments

“AB 60 doesn’t condone illegal immigration. Rather, it recognizes the argument made by some law enforcement officials, including Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, that we are all safer if those immigrants who are currently driving without a license are taught to operate a car safely and are tested to ensure that they meet the same standards as other drivers. Licenses will also deter hit-and-run accidents by taking away one of the chief incentives to flee the scene.”

It’s a smart move for the state, and for the country. Since that editorial, the number of issuing states has increased to 11, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Ensuring that immigrants in the U.S. illegally know how to drive safely does not reward them for violating the immigration laws. Rather, it helps make the roads safer for all of us.

The inevitable reaction to such an accommodation is to say, deport them all. But that’s not going to happen. Nor should it. DHS estimates there are at least 11.5 million immigrants in the country illegally – equal to the population of Ohio – which the New Republic estimated earlier this year (based on a Center for American Progress report) would cost $216 billion to deport, compared with DHS’ annual budget of $60 billion.

And if those here illegally were rounded up and sent home, the effect on the economy would be around $260 billion a year, the libertarian Cato Institute estimated based on the assumption of 8.3 million immigrants living here illegally and working in the country.

At some point Congress must find a way to bring these immigrants out of the shadows while creating disincentives for future such immigration. No easy task, I know. But the status quo appeals to no one, and the nation can’t deport them all. We need a common sense approach. While pragmatism is hard to find in Congress these days, we still should demand it.

[Thanks to US Constitution Article IV, the ACLU, La Raza, and other “it discriminates against a minority” diversity proponents, the “undocumented worker” hologram will, after a court challenge to the 9th Circuit, then SCOTUS affirming that it is discriminatory and therefore must be removed, all illegal aliens will automatically become voters and citizens. Establish residency in CA, get a standard driver’s license, move to another state, and use the standard CA DL as proof of citizenship, register to vote, and own the country.

I have written about this for years, just look through the various posts.

BTW, we DO have the resources to kick them all out. Just enforce the laws, especially Mazzoli 1986, and E-Verify!

Secession, before Sylvia Thompson’s prophecy becomes reality.


« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.