Saturday, August 29, 2015


Deputy Darren Goforth, 47, the father of two and a 10-year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff’s Department, was gunned down at a Houston gas station last night as he was refueling his patrol car. It was an unprovoked assassination. The shooter simply walked up behind the deputy, fired several shots at him execution style, and then fired several more shots into the prone deputy after he fell to the ground. The piece of shit then walked to a pickup truck and fled.

Trey Rusk, found the following unsigned posting, written by a sheriff’s deputy, on Facebook:

You know what you won't see tomorrow ?...


You won't see the news media interview sketchy witnesses that paint some grandiose picture of what MIGHT have happened.

You won't see President Obama talk about this deputy in the same fashion as Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, or Trayvon Martin.. If he even utters his name at all.. which isn't likely.

You won't see civil rights activists flock to Houston.

You won't hear much, if anything, from the candidates.

You know what else you won't hear? You won't hear some representative of the HCSO contact Deputy Danforth's wife, sit her down, and tell her that she has to raise those beautiful kids by herself. You won't hear a sentence start with "I'm so sorry to have to tell you this, but your husband isn't coming home tonight". You won't hear the moms like mine, the wives, husbands, and the children beg their loved one not to go to work or to find a different profession. You won't hear that crap.. Because it'll be in our homes. In private. Not in your face on CNN for a cause.

Normally my crap is really politically correct.. But not tonight. There is an all out WAR being waged on your police. On the ones that are supposed to protect you, that you pay for with your tax dollars.

There is a HUGE majority of people that want more transparency with the police - we get it - we're doing it. You want to record us in our faces with your cell phones, trying to antagonize us, so you can make it to YouTube- we get it - we're not stopping you. BUT damn, do you want transparency, or do you want us to just stay home?

To the POS coward that pulled his little stunt tonight. Good for you. You won tonight. You took one of us out, made the headlines, and made a statement. But I guaran-damn-tee you.. You won't make it far. Every cop I know would love the opportunity to hunt you down right now. You took one of our brothers. You gunned him down from behind, then shot him some more. Like a dog. You'll probably take the coward's way out and off yourself. But if you don't, I hope your actions were worth it, you sorry coward. Because you just stirred the hornet's nest and there are some motivated folks coming after you that will follow you straight to the gates of Hell to bring you to justice.

To everybody else.. To the supporters. To the ambivalent ones. Even to the ones that just don't like us: Don't worry. We won't riot. We won't protest. We won't loot. We won't strike. We won't change. We'll get up and come right back to work again tomorrow. Because we love it. And we love you. And we are here. No matter what, we'll ALWAYS be that THIN BLUE LINE.


Letter urging rejection of the deal was sent as a rebuttal to a letter by 40 retired generals and admirals who support the deal

BY Natalie Johnson

The Daily Signal
August 28, 2015

More than 200 retired U.S. generals and admirals added their names to the Iran nuclear agreement’s opposition this week after they sent a letter to top congressional leaders pressing lawmakers to reject the accord.

The former senior military officers contend that the deal threatens U.S. national security, noting the estimated $150 billion that will pour into Tehran if sanctions are lifted and will provide the regime with more funds to support terrorism.

The letter also points to limitations of international inspections, claiming that the current framework is unverifiable and lacks credibility.

The retired officers also say the agreement does not prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but instead provides a “legitimate path” toward its nuclear ambitions.

“This agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” they wrote.

The former officers sent the letter to Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate in response to one sent last week from nearly 40 retired generals and admirals endorsing the deal.

They wrote that the agreement among Iran, the U.S., and five other nations is the “most effective means” to preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons and “strengthens” U.S. national security.

“If the deal is rejected by America, the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark.”

Congress has until Sept. 17 to accept or reject the deal.

EDITOR’S NOE: So who should the members of Congress believe ….. 200 generals and admirals or 40?

Friday, August 28, 2015


BY Ben Nuckols

Associated Press
August 27, 2015

WASHINGTON — The boos began as soon as Washington's mayor said she was putting more police officers on the streets in neighborhoods affected by violent crime. They didn't let up for the next 18 minutes as Democrat Muriel Bowser laid out her plans to address an increase in homicides in the nation's capital.

Bowser was repeatedly heckled and interrupted by a few dozen protesters affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement during her address Thursday inside the sweltering gymnasium of a long-shuttered school in southeast Washington.

Shouting "Jobs, not jails!" and "More police is not the answer!," the protesters accused the mayor of failing to address the root causes of violence and advocating for policies that would do more harm than good.

Bowser, who is black, said she wanted "to make 'Black Lives Matter' more than just a hashtag.'" The hecklers said they didn't believe her.

"I think she doesn't really care. From the beginning, the mayor has been completely aloof from the broader conversation that the Black Lives Matter movement is driving," said Eugene Puryear, a protest organizer. "At the end of the day, tougher penalties and more cops, which have only been proven to have a negative effect, are something that she's going to continue to support."

There have been 103 slayings in the District of Columbia this year, a 43 percent increase over this point last year and just two fewer than in all of 2014. The increase in violent crime has represented the first real crisis for Bowser, who took office in January and pledged a "fresh start" for the city after her predecessor was dogged by campaign-related scandals.

Police officers are already working overtime in neighborhoods where violence has been most prevalent. Most of Bowser's other proposals will require D.C. Council approval and take at least months to implement.

Among her legislative goals is to authorize warrantless searches of violent offenders released on parole or probation to look for illegal guns. The protesters argued those searches would put innocent people at risk.

The mayor's supporters stood and applauded to try to drown out the hecklers, and her staff attempted to restore order. No one was arrested or escorted from the building, and the mayor mostly ignored the shouts and forged ahead with her speech.

"I will not be shouted down or scared away when it comes to the safety of the District of Columbia," Bowser said.

Afterward, the mayor said she agreed with the protesters more than they were willing to acknowledge.

"I don't come across any citizen of this city, any Washingtonian, that says it's OK to commit murder," she said. "I don't come across anybody that says repeat violent offenders should have access to guns."

She and Police Commissioner Cathy Lanier also said many community members have been asking for more officers on the streets.

Outside the school, which Bowser said would be converted into a temporary community center offering city services, was a collection of stuffed animals and empty liquor bottles marking the spot where 18-year-old Shaun Simmons was fatally shot on Aug. 1. His mother, Shantee Simmons, said she agreed with the mayor's approach. A friend, Robin McKinney, said the protesters were rude.

"None of them came to support her when her son died," said McKinney, who is black. "None of that 'Black Lives Matter' came and supported her."

EDITOR’S NOTE: ‘Black Lives Matter’ is just a bunch of lawless rabble. If the protesters had been white, their disruptive asses would have been thrown swiftly into the slammer.


Ex-cons: “Life turn-arounds” find it difficult to gain entry inti the White House even though Obama has said former prison inmates should be treated like everyone else

By Richard Krupp, PhD

PACOVILLA Corrections blog
August 27, 2015

Recently the President stated:

“The people in our prisons have made some mistakes—and sometimes big mistakes—they are also Americans, and we have to make sure that as they do their time and pay back their debt to society that we are increasing the possibility that they can turn their lives around.”

I guess he wants people to treat former inmates like anyone else–not like ex-cons. At least that’s what he says.

How do his words match his actions?

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, a disconnect between his words and actions has surfaced:

White House Door Isn’t Always Open to Ex-Cons

President Barack Obama, as part of his push to overhaul the criminal-justice system, has said ex-offenders should have a chance at redemption. The White House’s security operation, however, hasn’t always been on board.

Invited guests with convictions in their past have encountered an array of roadblocks when attending meetings with administration officials. Some have been denied entry. Others have been assigned an escort. Several said they felt stigmatized by the experience.

“I was treated like a second-class citizen as a prelude to a conversation about how to overcome a criminal record,” said Glenn Martin, an ex-offender who is now an advocate for reducing the correctional population and overhauling sentencing laws.

When Vicki L. Lopez was invited to the White House, she was eager to discuss her work on prisoner re-entry issues. Ms. Lopez had attended similar meetings at the White House during George W. Bush’s presidency without incident, but her visits during the Obama administration have been much different. After traveling from Florida in 2009, Ms. Lopez and her colleagues never made it past the Secret Service checkpoint. Eventually, their meeting was moved to a nearby conference center.

Ms. Lopez, a former county commissioner in Florida, was convicted of a form of mail fraud and sentenced to 27 months in a federal prison. President Bill Clinton commuted her sentence in 2000, and she was completely exonerated when her conviction was vacated in 2011. No one explained why, exactly, Ms. Lopez wasn’t allowed to meet with officials in the Executive Office Building. “Somehow we’re unsafe, and somehow we’re not welcome,” she said.

While some former offenders appear to have been singled out, Janine Bertram Kemp, a disability rights advocate, said she didn’t have any problems during a recent visit to the White House for the 25th anniversary of the American with Disabilities Act. Ms. Bertram, 64 years old, served four years in prison for conspiracy and bank robbery as part of a 1970s revolutionary group. (for full story read

Hold your horses now! Are some ex-cons different than others? Is this an example of some kind of discrimination?

Is it possible that the President’s “life turn around” words don’t match his actions? Who can take the blame for this?

If a “life turn around” criminal has served his time and gone on the straight and narrow should he or she be treated like anyone else? Should he or she be able to get all the benefits of a person who hasn’t been in prison? What about voting rights?

Evidently, the President believes the answer to those questions is, “It depends.” Maybe there should be “life turn around” eligibility criteria and a form.

Doesn’t California already have a process for criminals to obtain a Certificate of Rehabilitation or something? Governor Brown could send a copy to the President.

Once the ex-cons find out about the “life turn around” deal they will be working their way up the mountain to the White House to chat it up with the President about criminal justice system reform. Imagine what visionary ideas they will come up with.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No surprise here since Obama is our Liar-In-Chief.

I have always advocated that inmates who have served out their time, or successfully completed parole, should have their right to vote restored along with the right to obtain skilled work licenses and professional licenses. If they fuck up feloniously, those rights will be revoked again.

Thursday, August 27, 2015


Year after year, which students are at the top of their high school graduating classes? Asians. Which immigrant groups are the most successful in establishing their own businesses? Asians. How do they do it? They do it by working harder than any other group, including native born Americans.

Nam Van Nguyen is one of those hard working Asians. He just got busted Wednesday for robbing more than 30 pharmacies and gas station across the Houston area in just a two-week period. Even though he got caught, you gotta admit that’s pretty good.

Click2Houston reports that “in each case he wore a baseball cap with sunglasses. He would purchase a candy or a pack of bubble gum, then pull out a weapon and demand cash from the register. He typically got away with $100 to $300 each time, but investigators say in one instance he stole about $1,000.”

Nam told Harris County sheriff’s investigators that he committed the robberies because he lost a lot of money gambling in Lake Charles, Louisiana. He said he owed his girlfriend more than $35,000.

Apparently Asians not only work harder, but they also have great girlfriends.

Nam is also a Gold Star parolee. Ten years ago he committed the same kind of robberies in Fort Bend County, which adjoins Harris County. He received a 25-year prison sentence and was recently paroled.


Black actress Daniele Watts, who was caught having sex with her white boyfriend in public, was ordered by a judge to send a letter of apology to an LAPD officer for falsely accusing him of being racist

I want to acknowledge that when we met last September, I allowed fear, shame, and anxiety to prevent me from relating to you in a peaceful way. Hopefully you can forgive the fact that my heightened emotions disturbed what might have otherwise been a carefree stop on your way to a nice cup of coffee.

With all the recent news coverage on the issue of biased policing, we probably all have a clearer understanding of the subtle – and often bizarre – ways that racial conflict continues to haunt many people in America. Sgt. Parker, when you said sarcastically, “Thank you for bringing up the race card, I never hear that,” I felt provoked because I had previously encountered many disheartening experiences related to “being black” both in my personal life, and as reflected in society overall. Your willingness to dismiss my experience with sarcasm was hurtful, and caused me to respond defensively.

Looking on the brighter side, we do believe that the public discourse that surrounded our encounter was beneficial, as it provided an opportunity for the public to discuss, and more deeply understand the “taboo” subject of interracial relationships. As you may know, interracial marriage was only made legal in the United States in 1967, and for many, it is still a very sensitive issue. I am grateful for our meeting because it allowed me to examine the shame and self-hatred I had been bottling inside, and release it.

We truly appreciate role you’ve played in bringing awareness to so many issues.

With Love, Daniele Watts & Brian James Lucas.

That is the letter black actress Daniele Watts wrote to now retired LAPD officer Jim Parker.

You may recall that last September Watts and her white boyfriend were caught having sex in her car with the car door open. After her arrest she accused Sgt. Parker of being a racist. An audio recording showed that Parker, who is white, was polite and professional the whole way and that it was Watts who played the race card..

In a plea bargain on a charge of lewd conduct, the judge ordered Watts and Brian James Lucas to write a letter of apology to Sgt. Parker. The apology they wrote was not acceptable to the judge since it was obviously insincere and full of excuses. They were ordered to send Parker an apology that actually sounded sorry. Watts and Lucas had until yesterday to send an apology acceptable to the judge.

It looks to me like that insincere apology was written mostly by Watts’ publicist. And each should have sent a separate letter, not a co-signed one. Here is what I think would be an acceptable apology by Watts:

Dear Sgt. Parker

Please accept my apology for having accused you of being a racist. You were right, it was I who brought up the race issue. At no time did you say or do anything that would have justified my accusation. I am truly sorry for what I said about you.

Daniele Watts

But let’s get real. That black bitch will not mean what she writes to Parker, regardless of how sorry she sounds.

As for calling Daniele Watts a black bitch, I know that’s definitely not politically correct, but that’s what she is.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015


Cops across the country are being trained to replace the police ‘warriors on crime’ mentality with a different approach, one that emphasizes protection over suppression, and patience instead of zero tolerance

When I first became a cop you were expected to kick ass and take names. Of course, that was long before anti-police protests and rioting in black communities. Today it’s almost as if cops are expected to hug a thug.

The Los Angeles Times of August 21, 2015 carried a story on the training of LAPD cops and the police all across the country, training that is intended to change the traditional police ‘warriors on crime’ mentality to that of community protectors. The new training emphasizes protection over suppression, and patience instead of zero tolerance.

The Times reminds readers of LAPD’s “dark” history, when during the 1970s and ‘80s, LA cops were a “hard-charging, occupying force that raided poor neighborhoods and rounded up anyone in sight. Police stormed suspected crack houses, tearing down walls with a tank-like battering ram.”

Recently Los Angeles Deputy Chief Bill Scott told his cops that, instead of seeing themselves as warriors cracking down on communities, they need to think of themselves as guardians watching over those communities. "That means if we've got to take somebody to jail, we'll take them to jail," he said. "But when we need to be empathetic and we need to be human, we've got to do that too."

Deputy Chief Bill Murphy, who heads LAPD’s training, says "If they [LA cops] do everything right, there should be no force.” And then he issued this veiled threat, "If they don't do everything right, then there will be some serious debriefing." Wow, according to Murphy’s Law, the new LA cop is expected to be a forceless law enforcer ….. or else! What’s Murphy been smoking? Forceless law enforcers ….. how are cops expected to arrest law breakers who are not willing to be arrested?

According to the Times, “After decades of training that focused mostly on firearms and force, agencies from Seattle to New York are introducing what they call de-escalation training, which looks at ways officers can reduce tension and potentially avoid using force during encounters with the public.”

The new training comes as a response to the unrest that has come with the killing of black men by white cops.

As someone who was personally involved in the training of Texas cops in the 1970s and ‘80s, I must take issue with the hogwash put out by the Los Angeles Times. The training of Texas cops was modeled after the training of California cops. At no police department across the state did the training of Texas cops in the 1970s and ‘80s focus “mostly on firearms and force.” And the same can be said for LAPD and police departments across the country.

I do not know where the Times came up with that hogwash. Yes, there was firearms training and defensive tactics training, but that was only a small part of the Texas basic peace officer training course. Police recruits were taught the state penal code, the code of criminal procedure, criminal investigation, drug identification, arrest techniques, traffic enforcement, human relations, community relations, etc. Throughout the basic course, it was emphasized that officers were not to use excessive force and to use deadly force only as a last resort.

We did teach aggressive policing, but by that we meant policing should be proactive instead of reactive. We certainly did not teach cops to go out and kick the shit out of everybody who pissed them off or to shoot people at the drop of a hat.

And before a police recruit can be licensed as a Texas peace officer, he must pass a comprehensive test administered by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement. That test covers the Commission’s mandated subjects for the basic peace officer training course. In order for the recruits to pass that licensing test, there’s just not a lot of time left in the basic training course for firearms and defensive tactics training. So much for that Los Angeles Times hogwash about training that focused mostly on firearms and force.

It is true that in many police agencies, officers were told not to take any shit from people and many officers today live by that mantra. That probably explains why a Texas state trooper recently arrested Sandra Bland after a traffic stop during which she refused his order to put out her cigarette, with Bland later hanging herself in jail.

A highly respected police official defended the Texas state trooper’s action by saying: “As soon as a lawful order is refused and not just a little back talk, she should have been arrested. Once an officer says, ‘You’re under arrest,’ that is a non-negotiable order. It is a big deal if someone gives a cop a bunch of lip during a legal detention! That's why cops are being hurt.”

That’s not exactly in line with the new policing by “patience instead of zero tolerance.”

I cannot argue with the need for more and newer training, but hey fellows, let’s not go overboard and make cops feel like they should say, ”Sir, please accept my sincere apology for offending you,” anytime a person gets agitated for being stopped by the police. And if activists had their way, we would be training cops to “deescalate” the situation after a black thug points a gun at them. How about: “Now sir, there’s no need for you to pull that gun on me. I would appreciate it if you would put it back in your waistband.”

No matter how much new training LAPD cops and cops throughout the nation undergo, you are still going to have some cops using excessive and deadly force. And when a cop feels that his life is in immediate jeopardy he will resort to the use of deadly force. Whenever cops use excessive or deadly force in the black community, unrest fueled by militant groups like ‘Black Lives Matter’ is very likely to follow.

The new training is designed to produce a kinder, gentler, caring cop. Recently, I did a spoof on the Ferguson police department, turning it into an all-women department. You know what ….. kinder, gentler and caring are qualities women have. Men who join up to be cops are not the kind, gentle, caring types. So it appears as if LA Deputy Chief Bill Murphy is looking for LAPD to become a police force of mostly forceless women.

I don’t know whether Murphy really believes what he’s telling the troops, or whether he’s just mouthing what higher-ups have told him to say. I’ve got news for the LAPD hierarchy ….. You need warriors on crime, especially in places like South LA. Men do not join the police to be kind, gentle and caring. They join up to be warriors on crime, just like you did many years ago.

Any training designed to restore trust of police in the black community must emphasize that cops treat everyone the same way they would want to be treated themselves if the roles were reversed, but only up to the point where an officer’s safety appears about to be compromised.

The problem is that cops, like all human beings, are prone to lose their tempers. Most cases of excessive force happen when a cop gets pissed off at someone. Then his emotions take over and he loses self-control. No amount of anger management training or head shrinking is going to change that. There will also be those moments of panic brought on by some action of a suspect that will cause officers to use their guns instinctively. And no amount of head shrinking will change that either.

Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern law enforcement, said “No quality is more indispensable to a policeman than a perfect command of temper.” True, but if you want a cop with a perfect command of temper, you’ll have to call for Robocop.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015


His progressive legacy won’t last because he passed vague laws and abused his executive power to impose policies that are unpopular

by Phil Gramm

The Wall Street Journal
August 23, 2015

How did Barack Obama join Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan to become one of the three most transformative presidents in the past century? He was greatly aided by the financial crisis that erupted during the 2008 campaign. This gave the new president a mandate and a large Democratic congressional majority that fully embraced his progressive agenda.

Having learned from previous progressive failures, President Obama embarked on a strategy of minimizing controversial details that could doom his legislative efforts. But no factor was more decisive than his unshakable determination not to let Congress, the courts, the Constitution or a failed presidency—as America has traditionally defined it—stand in his way.

Americans have always found progressivism appealing in the abstract, but they have revolted when they saw the details. President Clinton’s very progressive agenda—to nationalize health care and use private pensions to promote social goals—was hardly controversial during the 1992 election. But once the debate turned to the details, Americans quickly understood that his health-care plan would take away their freedom. Even Mr. Clinton’s most reliable allies, the labor unions, rebelled when they understood that under his pension plan their pensions would serve “social goals” instead of maximizing their retirement benefits.

In its major legislative successes, the Obama administration routinely proposed not program details but simply the structure that would be used to determine program details in the future. Unlike the Clinton administration’s ill-fated HillaryCare, which contained a detailed plan to control costs through Regional Healthcare Purchasing Cooperatives and strictly enforced penalties, ObamaCare established an independent payment advisory board to deal with rising costs. The 2009 stimulus package was unencumbered by a projects list like the one provided by the Clinton administration, which doomed the 1993 Clinton stimulus with ice-skating warming huts in Connecticut and alpine slides in Puerto Rico.

The Obama stimulus offered “transparency” in reporting on the projects funded but only after the money had been spent. Similarly the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law defined almost nothing, including the basis for designating “systemically important financial institutions” that would be subject to onerous regulation, what bank “stress tests” tested, what an acceptable “living will” for a financial institution looked like or what the “Volcker rule” required.

In addition to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Mr. Obama benefited from unprecedented Democratic support in Congress. Congressional Quarterly reported that “Obama’s 98.7% Senate success score in 2009 was the highest ever,” surpassing LBJ’s 93%, Clinton’s 85% and Reagan’s 88%. Reagan’s budget, tax cuts, Social Security reform and tax reform programs all had significant bipartisan input and garnered the strong Democratic support they needed to become law. But ObamaCare had no bipartisan input and did not receive a single Republican vote in Congress. The Obama stimulus package received no Republican votes in the House and only three Republican votes in the Senate. Dodd-Frank received three Republican votes in the House and three in the Senate.

Voters used the first off-year election of the Obama presidency to express the same disapproval that they had expressed in the Clinton presidency. Democrats lost 54 House and eight Senate seats in 1994, and 63 House and six Senate seats in 2010.

Mr. Clinton reacted to the congressional defeat by “triangulating” to ultimately support a bipartisan budget and tax compromise that fostered broad-based prosperity and earned for him the distinction of being one of the most successful modern presidents. Mr. Obama never wavered. When the recovery continued to disappoint for six long years he never changed course. Mr. Clinton sacrificed his political agenda for the good of the country. Mr. Obama sacrificed the good of the country for his political agenda.

The Obama transformation was achieved by laws granting unparalleled discretionary power to the executive branch—but where the law gave no discretion Mr. Obama refused to abide by the law. Whether the law mandated action, such as income verification for ObamaCare, or inaction, such as immigration reform without congressional support, Mr. Obama willfully overrode the law. Stretching executive powers beyond their historic limits, he claimed the Federal Communications Commission had authority over the Internet and exerted Environmental Protection Agency control over power plants to reduce carbon emissions.

When Obama empowered himself to declare Congress in “recess” to make illegal appointments that the courts later ruled unconstitutional, he was undeterred. In an action that Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon would have never undertaken, Mr. Obama pushed Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to “nuke” the rights of minority Senators to filibuster judicial nominees and executive appointments by changing the long-standing 60-vote supermajority needed for cloture to a simple majority.

American democracy has historically relied on three basic constraints: a shared commitment to the primacy of the constitutional process over any political agenda, the general necessity to achieve bipartisan support to make significant policy changes, and the natural desire of leaders to be popular by delivering peace and prosperity. Mr. Obama has transformed America by refusing to accept these constraints. The lock-step support of the Democrats’ supermajority in the 111th Congress freed him from having to compromise as other presidents, including Reagan and Mr. Clinton, have had to do.

While the Obama program has transformed America, no one is singing “Happy Days Are Here Again” or claiming it’s “morning in America.” Despite a doubling of the national debt and the most massive monetary expansion since the Civil War, America’s powerhouse economy has withered along with the rule of law.

The means by which Mr. Obama wrought his transformation imperil its ability to stand the test of time. All of his executive orders can be overturned by a new president. ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank can be largely circumvented using exactly the same discretionary powers Mr. Obama used to implement them in the first place. Republicans, who never supported his program, are now united in their commitment to repeal it.

Most important, the American people, who came to embrace the Roosevelt and Reagan transformations, have yet to buy into the Obama transformation. For all of these reasons it appears that the Obama legacy rests on a foundation of sand.

Phil Gramm is a former Republican senator from Texas who chaired the Senate Banking Committee.


Fear of burning and looting as a response to police shootings of black men have panicked police chiefs into an immediate release of information, including the name of the officer involved

Riots which followed the shooting of black men by white cops in Ferguson and other cities have brought the police down to their knees in panic with a rush to release information about the shooting, including naming the cop who did the shooting. And police administrators damn well know that by releasing his name, they are placing that cop’s life in jeopardy.

The shooting of 19-year-old Christian Taylor by 49-year-old rookie police officer Brad Miller at an Arlington, Texas car dealership around 1:30 a.m. Friday August 7 serves as an example of the panic that now strikes police administrators whenever one of their cops shoots a black man. Taylor was unarmed and Miller was white. The following day Arlington's police chief identified Miller as the shooter and on August 11 he was fired for using poor judgement. Granted, as a rookie officer, Miller could be terminated immediately, but in a pre-Ferguson era that would probably not have happened until a thorough investigation lasting several weeks had been completed. It appears as though the swift axing of Miller did succeed in averting any mass demonstrations and rioting.

So who said burning and looting are counterproductive? Come to think of it they are counterproductive when they cause police administrators to panic and thereby place an officer's life in jeopardy.

Now, I agree that steps should be taken to prevent rioting from occurring in the wake of police shootings, but I wonder if there isn't a better way to do it without a rushed release of information, including naming the officer involved, before the investigation has been completed.

By Mike Blasky, David DeBolt and Robert Salonga

San Jose Mercury News
August 23, 2014

In the age of Black Lives Matter, where activists on Twitter quickly can turn quiet streets into organized protests and every person seemingly has a cellphone camera, the pressure on Bay Area police to deliver timely, accurate information after an officer-involved death has never been higher.

Law enforcement agencies around the country are finding they don't have a lot of choice except to release information in ways that would have been unimaginable a few years ago -- or else risk losing control of the narrative altogether. However, some critics say that information is only forthcoming when it paints the police in a good light.

Both versions played out last week in Oakland and San Jose, when community scrutiny forced the departments to take unusual steps for police agencies, which historically have kept a tight lid on incidents involving police killings.

Seeking to correct misinformation and quell community outrage, Oakland police for the first time showed select media the body camera videos from two recent controversial deaths.

The same day, the San Jose Police Department publicly acknowledged misstating the circumstances of an officer-involved shooting. They originally that said a man suspected in a murder case had reached for his waistband before officers fired, but the man had not done so.

San Jose police said the mistake was caused by a hasty report that proved untrue after further investigation. But their retraction, and the ensuing self-admonishment, also was highly unusual.

And in Sunnyvale, police shot and killed an armed suspect during a chase stemming from a call about suspected prostitution on Aug. 15. Two days later, officials released a two-page, single-spaced account chronicling the sequence of events leading to the deadly shooting in unusual detail.

And it isn't just happening in the Bay Area. Police departments across the country are bowing under pressure, and the Black Lives Matter movement isn't slowing down.

Shootings by police that once garnered little attention outside family and friends of the deceased are attracting huge crowds of protesters.

So is more information the new normal for police? Oakland police Chief Sean Whent says communities demand it -- and more transparency builds trust.

"A police department simply saying that 'it's under investigation and you'll hear about it when it's done' isn't sufficient anymore," he said.

In Oakland, the pressure started after Twitter users on Aug. 12 spread rumors that officers had shot armed robbery suspect Nate Wilks, 28, as he was trying to surrender, sparking protests that blocked highway ramps and led to minor property damage that night.

Whent's decision to show the videos to the media was an unprecedented move by a Bay Area police department, although he also was criticized for not making the videos available to the larger public. The department on Friday also released the names of the three officers involved in that case.

Legally, the department doesn't have to show anyone the videos until its investigation is over. The chief said he thought informing the media was a necessary public safety move to vindicate his officers and prevent unrest but without compromising authorities' reviews of the incident.

"The public is skeptical, and in some cases rightfully so," Whent said Thursday. "It behooves police departments to share as much info as they possibly can, but the public has to recognize we're still doing an investigation that we have to protect."

More agencies are equipping officers with body cameras despite years of initial resistance, and the purchases have been made easier thanks to new state and federal grants. But, like the rapid rise of Black Lives Matter after the shooting of Michael Brown a year ago in Ferguson, Missouri, many officers' views on cameras changed because of that event.

There was no video of Officer Darren Wilson shooting Brown, who was unarmed; many officers thought Wilson was wrongly villainized and that body cameras might have saved his career.

Dennis Kenney, professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and an expert in police training, agrees that Ferguson was a pivotal moment for many agencies.

"Ferguson is probably the point that kicked it off. It demonstrated communities are pushing back, and police have gotten the message," he said.

But is the motive really transparency, or are departments trying to save their own skin? Kenney said it's a mixed bag.

"The biggest thing is that police caught the idea that everyone is watching and recording. The media has also picked it up, so now there's this focus on it. ... They haven't really had a choice but to respond," he said.

Skeptics say police will only voluntarily release a video if there's an advantage to their department, although that's not always true. Authorities in Cincinnati recently released video of an officer shooting an unarmed black man. That officer was indicted on a murder charge.

In Oakland, the videos vindicated the officers and served the department's purpose. But that didn't mean Whent's decision was roundly praised. Civil rights advocates were angered that police didn't release the full videos to the public and initially excluded some media members.

Peter Scheer, executive director of the local First Amendment Coalition, said the department opened the door by inviting some members of the public for a viewing, and now all the videos should be released. Jim Chanin, a civil rights attorney whose lawsuits against Oakland police abuses led to federal monitoring of the department, said that releasing some videos and withholding others could infer that police acted improperly in some cases.

Police are hesitant to craft firm policies about releasing body camera video without any direction from the courts, said William Sousa, a UNLV criminal justice professor in the midst of one of the largest studies on police body camera effectiveness.

Oakland police have no policy on when to release a police video, instead taking each incident on a case-by-case basis. That's typical, Sousa said.

"I think you'll see policies adjust quite dramatically across the board once there's more case law," he said. "We just don't have many cases involving body-worn cameras that have hit the court systems."

Other cities using police cameras also are struggling with how to use their new tools to engage the community.

In San Leandro, individual officers have the right to decide when to turn on their camera, but most do more often than not, Lt. Robert McManus said. There have been five officer-involved shootings since uniformed officers began wearing the cameras in September 2014, and all five were captured on camera, he said.

None of the footage has been publicly released. And it likely won't.

"There is a need for the public to see this type of stuff, but there's a stronger need in my opinion to protect that evidence in order to ensure a fair and unbiased trial," McManus said, noting that the BART officer who killed Oscar Grant III at an Oakland BART station in 2009 had his trial moved to Los Angeles.

In Richmond, police officials in September released the name of an officer five days after he shot and killed a man outside a liquor store during a struggle. In other cities, the names of officers often are not released until months later when they appear in a district attorney's report.

"You have a small window of time to accurately give information about what happened to reassure people," said Richmond police Capt. Mark Gagan. "The absence of that reassurance can cause a large amount of community outrage, which in recent history has spun into property damage and injury that is detrimental for everyone."

Whent defended his decision, noting that the families of those killed by police were allowed to view the videos before the media. It's important to the agency that families of those killed by police have the opportunity to see the footage, and important that the community understands when and why his officers used force, he said.

If the courts rule that Whent's department did violate public records laws, there's a chance it would be more guarded with its evidence in the future.

"I think what I did (Wednesday) is the right thing to do, and hope the courts will agree with me to that length," he said.

Monday, August 24, 2015


Legal in most countries, but not in the politically correct U.S.


42 percent of all British vehicle thefts are committed by hackers and those thefts are now occurring in the U.S.

And here you thought your new keyless car was safe from car thieves, Trey Rusk, a former Texas state law enforcement official and now an investigator with an auto theft task force, issues this warning backed up by an excerpt from the Daily Mail:

I attended the International Association of Auto Theft Investigators Conference in Phoenix the week of August 9. I thought you might want to pass this on to your readers.

Investigators from England told us that 42% of their vehicle thefts were due to vehicles being hacked. It has already arrived here, just not as rampant. I'm sure it will get worse.

The best advice is to buy a visible deterrent like a steering wheel lock. It may be old fashioned, but the thieves will probably move on instead of taking the time trying to defeat it.

From the Daily Mail:

For enterprising criminals, it didn’t take long to find a way of exploiting the technology of keyless cars.

When you buy a car fitted with this technology, you are issued with a keyless ignition fob programmed by the manufacturer with a unique 40-digit code. Place the fob on the dashboard, or just climb into the car with it, and the car’s onboard computer will detect the code. If it matches the one in its memory, the driver is allowed to start the car.

However, the computer is capable of doing more than just checking the code. It can also re-progamme a blank fob with a new code.

And here is where the trouble begins. For just £20, car thieves can buy a blank key fob and a hand-held box that plugs into the ‘on-board diagnostic port’ — a socket linked to the computer which is usually found next to the passenger side footwell.

The hand-held box tells the computer to reprogram the blank fob with a new code. It takes only a few seconds to create a fob that can be used in the car again and again.

These boxes are available on the internet and were designed so that garages and locksmiths could create replacement fobs for owners whose own sets had been lost or stolen.

But they are also easily available to thieves.

Thieves still have to get inside the cars, of course. Some do it the old-fashioned way by smashing a window. Others lurk close to a car as it parks and use a radio-scrambling device — again, easily bought on the internet — to stop the car locking when a driver presses the remote control button.

The devices they use are available on the internet via search engines, auction sites or, in some cases, direct from unscrupulous locksmiths and manufacturers.

After the driver walks away, unaware that he has left his car unlocked, the thieves can climb in, reprogram the security system … and drive off.

Police say drivers of keyless cars should invest in an old-fashioned steel crook lock that hooks around the steering wheel or pedals and costs from £30. These locks were popular in the Eighties and Nineties, but have fallen out of favor in recent years.


Surgeon who wrote of becoming killer is denied bail reduction

By Naomi Martin

The Dallas Morning News
August 23, 2015

Long before he faced lawsuits and criminal charges, a North Texas neurosurgeon emailed one of his employees.

“I am ready to leave the love and kindness and goodness and patience that I mix with everything else that I am and become a cold blooded killer,” Christopher Duntsch wrote.

To authorities, the chilling Dec. 11, 2011, email points to Duntsch’s mind-set in the months before he “intentionally, knowingly and recklessly” botched spinal surgeries, severely injuring four people and killing one woman, Floella Brown, who died in July 2012.

The email was among new evidence Dallas County prosecutors presented against Duntsch at a hearing Friday in which Criminal District Judge Carter Thompson refused to reduce Duntsch’s $600,000 bail.

“I am very well-pleased that he will remain in jail and that justice will eventually be served for the crimes that he has committed,” said Philip Mayfield, 45, who awoke paralyzed from the neck down in April 2013 after Duntsch performed surgery on his spine.

Duntsch, 44, was arrested July 21 on five counts of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and a count of injuring an elderly person. He performed those procedures at Dallas Medical Center, South Hampton Community Hospital and University General Hospital.

Dallas police said in a search warrant affidavit that he is also under investigation in the botching of at least 10 other patients’ surgeries in Plano and Dallas that occurred from November 2011 through June 2013. Duntsch “knowingly takes actions that place the patients’ lives at risk,” police said, such as causing extreme blood loss by cutting a major vein and then not taking proper steps to correct it.

In one case, Duntsch left a surgical sponge inside a man's body. During that same surgery, another doctor forced him to stop operating because of his “unacceptable surgical technique,” the affidavit said.

License revoked

Duntsch’s medical license was revoked in December 2013 after the Texas Medical Board found he had a pattern of failing to follow proper procedures before operations or respond to complications that caused at least two deaths.

Prosecutors argued that Duntsch’s bail should remain high because he could flee Dallas or harm others if free. They also said he could try to apply again for a medical license. Before his arrest, Duntsch was living with his parents and grandparents in Denver.

“All he has here are his medical peers that have shunned him and the media that is following him around and a whole bunch of victims that he has hurt and his civil and criminal cases,” said prosecutor Michelle Shughart. “He has every reason to flee the state.”

Shughart asked Duntsch’s father if his son was trying to get his medical license reinstated.

“I guess that’s probably true,” Donald Duntsch said. “I knew that was an intention of his at some point, in light of what happened, that he would be able to practice again as a doctor.”

Wearing glasses and a gray, striped jail jumpsuit, Duntsch glanced down and at his father as he sat beside his attorney, Robbie McClung.

The attorney argued Duntsch had no money to flee — he has filed for bankruptcy — and would stay in Texas, particularly because his two young sons live in the state. She also argued he should never have been criminally charged, since he made honest mistakes.

“The oath he took was to be a doctor,” McClung told the judge. “He screwed it up. He hurt people he was trying to help.”

Duntsch has claimed to be a victim of misunderstandings, rival surgeons and personal injury lawyers. He told The Dallas Morning News in a 2014 story about the accusations that “99 percent of everything that has been said about me is completely false.”

But in that startling 2011 email to his employee, Duntsch wrote: “how can I do anything I want and cross every disclipline boundary like it’s a playground and never ever lose.”

Role of drugs?

When the medical board suspended his license, it said “impairment from drugs or alcohol” affected his ability to treat patients, though the board later said there wasn’t evidence that he was impaired during surgeries.

Shughart, the prosecutor, sought to show Duntsch has ongoing substance abuse issues. She said Duntsch’s friend called his hospital and reported Duntsch had been up all night doing drugs the night before an operation. The hospital then sent him to rehab, she said.

Donald Duntsch testified that while his son was a college student in Tennessee, the school ordered him to go into rehab. In addition, the elder Duntsch said, his son was arrested last year in Colorado for impaired driving, and he testified that he had been concerned that his son was abusing Ritalin and alcohol.

“I know that he uses alcohol, particularly, which was an issue for us in the home, and we talked about it,” Donald Duntsch said. “The reality was, as he’s been going through this incredibly traumatic time, I think he’s probably used it some to self-medicate.”

Several victims and their families, some of whom held hands, cried and slung their arms around each other during the hearing, expressed relief after the judge’s ruling.

“He needs to be where he is right now until he gets to trial,” said Lee Passmore, 40, a former patient who reportedly suffered extreme pain and other complications as a result of a Duntsch surgery.

Sunday, August 23, 2015


Philly cop caught shaking down motorists to buy fundraising tickets

Philadelphia police officer Matthew Zagursky had been given a fistful bunch of fundraising tickets to sell. What better way to get rid of the tickets than to shake down motorists.

Zagursky got caught on video telling a stopped driver and his male companion:

"You and your friend got any money to buy these thrill show tickets? Either you buy these or I take your car. 'Cause it's unregistered. Ten bucks each, man."

At first the driver reluctantly agrees to buy two tickets, but that wasn’t good enough for Zagursky. Then the cop accepted $30 for three tickets.

The tickets were for some sort of thrill show this fall. Funds raised were to go to the families of fallen police officers and firefighters.

Zagursky was also heard making a homophobic crack about the driver’s pink windshield wipers. The driver explained they honored his grandmother who has breast cancer. Yeah, right, and pigs can fly.

Instead of putting people in jail, it looks as if Zagursky could be headed to the slammer himself. When he was in the police academy, he must have dozed off during the extortion lesson.

When will cops realize that them video cameras are everywhere? This video was taken from inside the shakedown victim’s car and ended up on Facebook to the embarrassment of the Philadelphia Police Department and the detriment of soon to be ex-officer Matthew Zagursky.


An autopsy shows that black 18-year-old Mansur Ball-Bey was shot in the back by two white St. Louis cops

On Wednesday afternoon, cops were executing a search warrant in a St. Louis Black neighborhood when two armed youths fled out the back. Two white officers gave chase and shot 18-year-old Mansur Ball-Bey dead when he turned and pointed a gun at them. The other thug got away.

As soon as it became known that white cops had slain a black youth the protests started. Bottles and rocks were hurled at the cops and at least one building was burned to the ground.

Even though in this case Ball-Bey was armed, the usual activist troublemakers declared that the cops could have and should have “deescalated” the situation instead of resorting to the use of deadly force. And that was before the autopsy report was released.

And now - - oh oh! – the autopsy shows that Ball-Bey died from one shot to the back.

On Friday, in response to the autopsy report, St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson said:

"Just because he was shot in the back doesn't mean he was running away. What I do know is that two officers were involved and fired shots, but I don't know exactly where they were standing yet and I won't know until I get their statements."

University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist David Klinger said that when someone gets shot from behind, "literally means nothing" without context, "We just don't know. You shouldn't look at one thing and say this is dispositive, and it drives me nuts that people want to rush to judgment."

Try telling the activist troublemakers what Chief Dotson and Prof. Klinger said. They were already all riled up because white cops shot another black man. Knowing now that Ball-Bey was shot in the back merely serves to throw more gasoline on the fire.

There are a number of reasons a person may be shot in the back by cops where the shooting can be explained and justified, that is to someone who is willing to listen.