Monday, October 31, 2016


The revelation that the computer belonging to the weenie waving ex-hubby of Hillary’s close chum Huma Abedin contains thousands of State Department emails has pissed off Hillary and top campaign staffer John Podesta. So, how does the Hillary campaign handle this damaging news with less than two weeks to go until the November 8 election day?

The Hillary campaign counters the revelation by resorting to the tried and true ‘shooting the messenger’ strategy. For Hillary and the Democrats, it’s now an all-out war against FBI Director James Comey.

During a campaign rally Saturday in Daytona Beach, Hillary attacked Comey by saying:

“If you're like me, you probably have a few questions about it. It is pretty strange. It's pretty strange to put something like that out with such little information, right before an election. In fact, it's not just strange it's unprecedented and it's deeply troubling. Voters deserve to get full and complete facts. And so we call on Director Comey to explain everything right away and put it all out on the table.”

And during an impromptu press conference during a flight to Des Moines she said:

“We are 11 days out from perhaps the most important election of our lifetimes. The American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately. We've heard these rumors. We don't know what to believe and I'm sure there will be even more rumors. That's why it is incumbent upon the FBI to tell us what they're talking about. Because right now your guess is as good as mine and I don't think that's good enough.”

In a call to reporters Saturday, Hillary’s campaign chairman John Podesta blasted Comey’s letter to Congress about the renewed email investigation as being “long on innuendo and short on facts.” He said:

“It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election. The more information that’s come out, the more overblown it seems. Despite initial reporting the letter amounted to a quote unquote reopening of the investigation … it seems that that is not at all the case. It's had to see how this amounts to anything. Comey has not been forthcoming with the facts. What little told us: hard to understand why this was warranted at all.

The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.”

Hillary’s VP candidate Tim Kaine accused Comey of breaking two Department of Justice protocols. Here is what he said Sunday on ABC’s This Week:

“Now this is an unprecedented move … because it happens close to an election. which is in violation of normal Justice Department protocol and it involves talking about an ongoing investigation, which also violates the protocol. And as far as we know now, Director Comey knows nothing about the content of these e-mails. We don’t know whether they’re to or from Hillary at all.”

In a letter to Comey, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested that the FBI Director violated the Hatch Act which prohibits government employees in their capacity as such from involving themselves in a partisan political campaign. Here are excerpts from Reid’s letter:

“Through your partisan action, you may have broken the law.

… your actions strongly suggests that your highly selective approach to publicizing information, along with your timing, was intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group.”

That ‘shoot the messenger’ strategy may be working. Reports from all around the country indicate Democrats are really riled up over Comey’s action and plan to vote in increasing numbers.

So, please disregard the bad news message and let us shoot the messenger instead.

Comey is not just being attacked by the Hillary campaign. FBI sources report that Attorney General Loretta Lynch did not want Comey to send his letter to Congress.

While FBI agents obtained a search warrant in September to obtain evidence from weenie waver Weiner’s computer regarding his sexting a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina, the Justice Department blocked the FBI until late Sunday from getting a search warrant to extract the State Department emails from that computer.

Lynch is thoroughly pissed off at the FBI Director. And I am sure President Obama is pissed off too. It remains to be seen how much longer James Comey can remain as head of the FBI.


By Bob Walsh

For the 78th year in a row the Martians did NOT attack the earth, at Grover's Mill, New Jersey, or anyplace else for that matter.

There is actually a commemorative monument at the site where the Martian's didn't land on October 30,. 1938. Every year I listen to a recording of the Mercury Theater presentation of the War of the Worlds. Every year I have to remind myself that radio was relatively new and audiences were less sophisticated than they are now. The time line and compression is way off, what seemed to be happening could not possibly be happening in the time presented in the pseudo-news broadcast but many people believed that it was. In fact the remains of a water tower still stand there, it was shot up by locals who believed it was one of the Martian war machines attacking.

Still, it could have been worse. The same broadcast, in Spanish of course, with the geography tweaked for local audiences, was put out in Venezuela shortly after the end of WW II. When the locals found out that it was a "hoax" they attacked the radio station, killed several people and burned the building to the ground.

Sunday, October 30, 2016


College grads are six times likelier to know who won "American Idol" than they are to know the name of the speaker of the House

By Walter E. Williams

October 26, 2016

Do you wonder why Sen. Bernie Sanders and his ideas are so popular among American college students? The answer is that they, like so many other young people who think they know it all, are really uninformed and ignorant. You say, "Williams, how dare you say that?! We've mortgaged our home to send our children to college." Let's start with the 2006 geographic literacy survey of youngsters between 18 and 24 years of age by National Geographic and Roper Public Affairs.

Less than half could identify New York and Ohio on a U.S. map. Sixty percent could not find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map of the Middle East, and three-quarters could not find Iran or Israel. In fact, 44 percent could not locate even one of those four countries. Youngsters who had taken a geography class didn't fare much better. By the way, when I attended elementary school, during the 1940s, we were given blank U.S. maps, and our assignment was to write in the states. Today such an assignment might be deemed oppressive, if not racist.

According to a Philadelphia magazine article, the percentage of college grads who can read and interpret a food label has fallen from 40 to 30. They are six times likelier to know who won "American Idol" than they are to know the name of the speaker of the House. A high-school teacher in California handed out an assignment that required students to use a ruler. Not a single student knew how.

An article on News Forum for Lawyers titled "Study Finds College Students Remarkably Incompetent" cites a study done by the American Institutes for Research that revealed that over 75 percent of two-year college students and 50 percent of four-year college students were incapable of completing everyday tasks. About 20 percent of four-year college students demonstrated only basic mathematical ability, while a steeper 30 percent of two-year college students could not progress past elementary arithmetic. NBC News reported that Fortune 500 companies spend about $3 billion annually to train employees in "basic English."

Reported by Just Facts, in 2009, the Pentagon estimated that 65 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. were unqualified for military service because of weak educational skills, poor physical fitness, illegal drug usage, medical conditions or criminal records. In January 2014, the commander of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command estimated this figure at 77.5 percent, and in June 2014, the Department of Defense estimated this figure at 71 percent (

A few weeks ago, my column discussed the dishonesty of college officials ( Here's more evidence: Among high-school students who graduated in 2014 and took the ACT college readiness exam, here's how various racial/ethnic groups fared when it came to meeting the ACT's college readiness benchmarks in at least three of the four subjects: Asians, 57 percent; whites, 49 percent; Hispanics, 23 percent; and blacks, 11 percent. However, the college rates of enrollment of these groups were: Asians, 80 percent; whites, 69 percent; Hispanics, 60 percent; and blacks, 57 percent. What I am labeling as dishonest, fraudulent or deceitful comes from the fact that many more students are admitted to college than are in fact college-ready. Admitting such students may satisfy the wants and financial interests of the higher education establishment, but whether it serves the interests of students, families, taxpayers and the nation is another question.

To accommodate less college-ready students, colleges must water down their curricula, lower standards and abandon traditional tools and topics. Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein writes in his book "The Dumbest Generation": Tradition "serves a crucial moral and intellectual function. ... People who read Thucydides and Caesar on war, and Seneca and Ovid on love, are less inclined to construe passing fads as durable outlooks, to fall into the maelstrom of celebrity culture, to presume that the circumstances of their own life are worth a Web page."

EDITOR’S NOTE: Unless they graduated with a degree in the sciences, engineering or math, today’s college grads are very likely to be educated idiots. And among the educated idiots I include many college profs.

Compare the sad state of our colleges and universities with their worthless African-American Studies and Gender Studies among other nonsensical programs to the no-nonsense studies in the universities of China, South Korea and Japan.


At least according to the democrat California Attorney General they are not

By Bob Walsh

Kamala Harris, the current California A.G. is running for the available U.S. Senate seat from California against another Democrat Latina. Harris is very likely to win the contest. She is, however, trying to shore up her polling in the Hispanic community against Ms. Sanchez, her opponent.

Personally I will be happy to see her go, get her the hell out of California. That being said I am unsure that having a state A.G. or a member of the U.S. Senate who says up front that being an illegal alien is not a crime is helpful or reasonable. It may very well, however, be helpful to get her liberal ass elected, which is of course what is important (to her).


Below is my take on captioned matter. It is my belief that the FBI was politically manipulated to insure a particular outcome. I think there is substantial evidence to support my belief and the manner in which the investigation was handled tarnished the Bureau’s reputation for conducting impartial and apolitical investigations. I am not trying to influence how people vote. I could not care less. My concern is what those in authority did to our FBI. My reasons are set forth below.

Part One:

1. The statute that was used to judge HRC’s actions, makes it a criminal felony violation to mishandle classified information intentionally OR with gross negligence. Director Comey stated that HRC acted with “extreme carelessness” in the handling of classified info. Extreme Carelessness is Gross Negligence. She violated this statute which Congress, not Director Comey created. As an executive branch member, he has no authority to ignore the express language of a statute created by Congress. His mission is to follow the law, not abolish congressional statutory language that he does not like. He decided to arbitrarily modify the statute by de facto elimination of the “Gross Negligence portion of the statute. By doing so, he acted outside the scope of his authority.

2. In my 30 yrs in the FBI and total of 44 yrs in Law enforcement, I was never involved in or even heard of an investigation which ignored evidence of “other crimes” uncovered while investigating the original crime under investigation.` But in this case, the FBI began by investigating mishandling of classified info on a private email system – then recovered thousands of emails that HRC and her team destroyed (recovered from recipients' computers). Some of those emails disclosed that certain donors to the Clinton Foundation gave huge amts of money to the Foundation and in return rec’d meetings with HRC at the State Dept. Many of the donors were from Foreign Countries. While access alone is not criminal, it provides a “Reasonable Indication” (which is sufficient to open a new investigation under DOJ Guidelines,) into the likelihood of Quid Pro Quo/Bribery.

No one donates thousands/millions of dollars to a Private Foundation for a meeting with the Secretary of State to talk about the NFL football season/ or the weather forecast. What deals were made or discussed in those meetings? The FBI had blinders on and refused to widen the investigation when there was clear probable cause to do so. This my friends never happened when I was in the FBI. In my career, if we started with a stolen property case and it lead to drugs, guns and murder, we expanded to include all the new crimes. It is unprecedented that it did not happen with the HRC investigation. This is wrong. I don’t know whether DOJ ordered the FBI to ignore other avenues of investigation or whether the Bureau restricted itself to ignore these obvious avenues of inquiry.

3.) In all my 44 yrs of service, I never saw a case where deliberate destruction of evidence was ignored instead of thoroughly investigated. Deliberate destruction of evidence is not only felonious in and of itself (i.e. felonious per se) but also indicative of Knowledge that the original conduct of HRC and her Aides was intentional/deliberate. (This goes back to my point in section one above and is indicative of the fact that the handling of classified info was even more than gross negligent and was instead likely deliberate/intentional).--- Nevertheless when you find evidence that HRC’s lawyer Cheryl Mills called one of the private server operators after a Congressional subpoena was issued for the emails and ordered him to destroy thousands of emails relevant to the subpoena, this is prima facie evidence of obstruction of justice. Moreover, there is evidence that 13 of HRC’s phones were deliberately destroyed and /or “missing”—some of the phones were smashed with a hammer/ and bleach bit was used to destroy 33,000 emails.

I have never seen a case like this in all my yrs where deliberate destruction of evidence was simply ignored by the FBI and not investigated. Again, I don’t know whether this was ordered by DOJ or whether the FBI restricted itself. Either way, it is totally inappropriate.

4.) The DOJ/ apparently with FBI concurrence/ gave Cheryl Mills and HRC’s other lawyer so called “Act of Production” immunity for their computers which contained highly classified information. “Act of Production” immunity is strictly limited to the very act of turning over the computers. It is never given to include what is actually found on the computers –It is only given for the act of turning them over. In all other cases that I am aware of when this is done, the FBI agent receiving the computer cannot take the stand and testify that he/she rec’d the computer from the person receiving the immunity. If the FBI wants to use the info they find on the computer against the provider, they have to show that it belonged to the provider by means unrelated to the Act of Production. In the HRC investigation, the immunity grant, as I understand it was all encompassing, not limited to the act of production but extended to the contents of the computer and even included any contents the lawyers may have destroyed. This is both incredible and unprecedented.—I have never seen a case handled in this fashion. Immunity grants should be limited to what is necessary to obtain the needed evidence and not extended beyond what is absolutely necessary. The fact that there was no grand jury, subpoena power and Federal judge controlling the grand jury to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt probably contributed to these broad immunity grants. Ask yourself why no grand jury was convened?

5.DOJ/apparently with FBI acquiescence agreed to limit the scope of their inquiry to a date prior to when the major destruction of evidence occurred. How could this be agreed to unless the fix was in? There was reason to believe that massive obstruction occurred and the FBI/DOJ not only declined to investigate it but also inexplicably agreed to stop the investigation before the dates when the destruction occurred. I have never seen or heard of anything like it. Moreover, knowing full well that a multitude of Congressional inquiries were ongoing with respect to these matters, the FBI agreed to destroy the contents of the computers rec’d from HRC’s 2 lawyers. When have you ever seen or heard of anything like this?

6. The DOJ/apparently with FBI acquiescence refused to use a grand jury to investigate this case. The FGJ could have issued subpoenas and compelled witness testimony under oath. It was not done here. With respect to gathering evidence from HRC’s Private Server Company, the State Dept and HRC’s staff, including her lawyers, search warrants could have been obtained before critical evidence was destroyed. None of this was done. All of these steps would have been taken in every other case but not this one.

7.) According to published news reports, President Obama, using a pseudonym was the sender/receiver of several emails containing classified info that went thru HRC’s non secure set up. Even Cheryl Mills was horrified when she read one of the emails without knowing it came from Obama.

8.) DOJ or the FBI decided to permit Cheryl Mills to be present during the questioning of HRC. Mills at that time was an immunized Subject of the investigation. Probable cause existed to believe that Mills had ordered the destruction of numerous HRC emails. This decision was simply amazing and beyond the pale.

My guess is that a lot more negative info will trickle out before this is over. I am upset with Director Comey for allowing the apolitical reputation of the FBI to come under question. What happened is a severe blight upon the reputation of an agency that we served with distinction for so many years. It will take many years to reconstruct our reputation.

Part Two:

I appreciate that Director Comey held a press conference in July, explaining the FBI investigative findings, which was unprecedented. What he did was necessary but not sufficient to protect the reputation of the Bureau. I also believe that he was under enormous pressure from the President/AG to limit the scope of the investigation. President Obama’s public commentary during his “60 minutes” interview gave us a preview of how this was all going to come out. He said HRC made a mistake but basically it was not a big deal. (Now we know that he was communicating with HRC on the unsecured server using a pseudonym). We are supposed to be a Nation of Laws/not men. It is often said that No man (or woman) is above the law. This ideal was abandoned in this case. Anyone else would have been prosecuted. Expediency rather than honor was the winner here.

By refusing to convene a Federal Grand Jury, DOJ placed the FBI into a World Series Game without a bat and a glove. This eliminated sworn witness testimony and subpoena power (as you are well aware, these are some of the absolute main investigative methods necessary to break open a case where cooperation is limited or non existent/It allows recalcitrant witnesses to be brought before a Federal Judge and be held in contempt and jailed for refusal to cooperate after an immunity grant). Have FBI Agents conducting a major investigation ever in Bureau history been so handcuffed in conducting that investigation?

Director Comey was faced with a very difficult choice. He could either send his team onto the field without bats and gloves in front of the entire nation/world or tell Lynch to go to hell and threaten to resign. He chose the former. He should have chosen the latter and called their bluff.----I am sorry that he did not do so. His resignation, if required, would have preserved the integrity and reputation of the FBI. The reputation of the FBI has been severely damaged in the process not just among many xagents but also many outside the FBI family as well.

Copyright © 2016 Boston Chapter-Former Special Agents of the FBI

Mike Callahan, among FBI positions he held, was the Principle Legal Adviser (PLA) to the Special Agent in Charge of each FBI Division.


State District Judge Mary Lou Keel accuses the public defender’s office of overstepping her authority as a judge

By Meagan Flynn

Houston Press
October 27, 2016

It was by accident in 2012 that the Texas Department of Public Safety stumbled upon a troubling discovery affecting the validity of nearly 5,000 drug cases across Texas: One of its analysts at a Houston crime lab had intentionally falsified lab results.

Soon, after further review of the analyst's full body of work since 2006, DPS cautioned district attorneys across the state that nearly 4,900 cases — all of those that the analyst, Jonathan Salvador, had tested — could be in jeopardy due to his fabrications. Four hundred of them were in Harris County, leading the district attorney's office to ask the Harris County Public Defender's Office to help represent potentially hundreds of defendants in new trials, according to a 2014 memo obtained by the Houston Press.

Two years later, however, because of a dispute that arose between State District Judge Mary Lou Keel and the public defender's office about how, or even if, public defenders were allowed to help those 400 people get new trials, Keel has since then refused to work with any public defenders. In at least two years, she has appointed only one in her court. And today, she accuses the public defender's office of lying to her, saying they were not trying to help those defendants in the interest of justice, but only to “make themselves look good.”

“They think, 'oh, we're doing all this great work. We're gonna be the hero,'” says Keel, who is running in the upcoming election for the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, the state's highest criminal appellate court. “They certainly wanted to take on all these easy cases — it makes their stats look good. If they can get a bunch of these slam-dunk writs where almost everybody's going to be granted relief, yeah, they got carried away — but not out of the goodness of their heart.”

It is an accusation that the public defender's office strongly denies, saying that Keel blew a simple misunderstanding out of proportion, severing their otherwise productive relationship (even Keel says she used to be their "best customer"). “We were trying to make sure that justice was done, so I don't know how that's self-serving,” said Chief Public Defender Alex Bunin. “And it wasn't really our idea. If you talk to anyone at the DA's office, they'll say they asked us to do this.”

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals started granting relief and reversing convictions in cases arising out of the Jonathan Salvador snafu in 2013. It wasn't long after that Harris County found itself entangled in yet another crime lab scandal affecting a huge amount of convictions — and again in need of help from public defenders. Due to massive backlogs in drug testing at the former Houston Police Department crime lab, hundreds of defendants pleaded guilty to drug possession in order to get out of jail — even though months or even years later, the lab results finally came back as negative, proving their innocence. As of this summer, nearly 300 people have been found wrongfully convicted (so far).

Here's where the public defender's office came in, in both of these scandals, according to the 2014 memo written by Bunin: Normally, in order to obtain post-conviction relief, judges must appoint attorneys on a case-by-case basis, reviewing the facts of each individually. But because of the magnitude of the scandals, with every case having similar defects, Bunin says the district attorney asked them to step in and represent the defendants in blanket fashion, since prosecutors had already agreed in most cases to grant relief. Plus, Bunin wrote in the memo, if they didn't reach out to the defendants to offer assistance, few would "have the wherewithal to contact the court and ask for representation" themselves. (We asked DA's office spokesman Jeff McShan to verify Bunin's account of the DA's office's actions, but he did not respond.)

According to Keel, however, public defender Bob Wicoff, who specializes in post-conviction writs, took the DA's office's instructions a step too far, overstepping her authority as a judge.

After the DA's office began directing defendants from the Salvador batch his way, Wicoff got in touch with the defendants and, believing they were due relief, started filing writs of habeas corpus in various courts, including Keel's. Keel's problem: Wicoff never got her permission or official appointment before filing them, and she never determined whether the defendants were indigent first. (Public defenders generally only represent poor defendants after a judge's finding of indigence.)

“There was no authority whatsoever for them to take those cases,” Keel says. “And this is the thing that kills me: They tried to double-talk their way out of it and pretend like there was some arrangement that gave them the authority. And they have still not come clean on it.”

Today, Wicoff says that he regrets how the dispute unfolded. Firstly, he says, he misunderstood Judge Keel's primary complaint the first time she confronted him. Even though no other judges appeared to have a problem with public defenders proactively hopping on these potential wrongful convictions and filing the writs, Wicoff says, in retrospect, he wishes he would have simply asked Keel before filing them. After Keel's complaint, Wicoff says he and other public defenders stopped filing writs without official appointment.

Still, Wicoff maintains that the idea that he would do this for personal gain is a wrong assumption on Keel's part, and that he was only assisting the potentially wrongfully convicted defendants because, well, the DA's office put down his name in its letters to them.

“I respected Judge Keel for many years, and it simply pains me that she has reacted like this," Wicoff says. "She was under some assumption that this would solidify our standing in the criminal justice community, or it would work to our benefit. That never entered my mind. What entered my mind was I was happy to help.”

Keel is running on the Republican ticket for Place 2 on the Court of Criminal Appeals. She hopes to replace Democratic incumbent Larry Meyers, the only Democrat on the high court's bench and only Democrat in Texas's 29 statewide elected offices. Asked if she had anything to say about her race, she said, "If I get elected to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the PD won't have to worry anymore about me catching them."

And the public defenders will probably get their appointments back.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Harris County (Houston) has a half-ass public defender’s office. Unlike the federal system and the court systems in other states where the public defender’s office represents all indigent defendants, Harris County judges still appoint attorneys to represent indigents and the public defender’s office is limited to the kinds of cases they are allowed to handle..

In this instance, Judge Keel is a horse’s ass! She’s just bent out of shape because the public defender’s office bypassed her in representing the wrongly convicted. Fuck her!


We’re about to pay the price for all the good times

By Suzanne Woolley

October 26, 2016

It doesn’t seem like much to ask for—a 5 percent return. But the odds of making even that on traditional investments in the next 10 years are slim, according to a new report from investment advisory firm Research Affiliates.

The company looked at the default settings of 11 retirement calculators, robo-advisers, and surveys of institutional investors. Their average annualized long-term expected return? 6.2 percent. After 1.6 percent was shaved off to allow for a decade of inflation1, the number dropped to 4.6 percent, which was rounded up. VoilĂ .

So on average we all expect a 5 percent; the report tells us we should start getting used to disappointment. To show how a mainstream stock and bond portfolio would do under Research Affiliates’ 10-year model, the report looks at the typical balanced portfolio of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds. An example would be the $29.6 billion Vanguard Balanced Index Fund (VBINX). For the decade ended Sept. 30, VBINX had an average annual performance of 6.6 percent, and that’s before inflation. Over the next decade, according to the report, “the ubiquitous 60/40 U.S. portfolio has a 0% probability of achieving a 5% or greater annualized real return.”

One message that John West, head of client strategies at Research Affiliates and a co-author of the report, hopes people will take away is that the high returns of the past came with a price: lower returns in the future.

“If the retirement calculators say we’ll make 6 percent or 7 percent, and people saved based on that but only make 3 percent, they’re going to have a massive shortfall,” he said. “They’ll have to work longer or retire with a substantially different standard of living than they thought they would have.”

Research Affiliates’ forecasts for the stock market rely on the cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio, known as the CAPE or Shiller P/E. It looks at P/Es over 10 years, rather than one, to account for volatility and short-term considerations, among other things.

The firm’s website lets people enter their portfolio’s asset allocation into an interactive calculator and see what their own odds are, as well as how their portfolio might fare if invested in less-mainstream assets (which the company tends to specialize in). The point isn’t to steer people to higher risk, according to West. To get higher returns, you have to take on what the firm calls “maverick” risk, and that means holding a portfolio that can look very different from those of peers. “It’s hard to stick with being wrong and alone in the short term,” West said.

At least as hard though is seeing the level of return the calculator spits out for traditional asset classes. Splitting a portfolio evenly among U.S. large-cap equities, U.S. small-cap equities, emerging-market equities, short-term U.S. Treasuries, and a global core bond portfolio produced an expected return of 2.3 percent. Taking 20 percent out of short-term U.S. Treasuries and putting 10 percent of that into emerging-market currencies, and 10 percent into U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, lifted the return to 2.7 percent. Shifting the 20 percent U.S. large-cap chunk into 10 percent commodities and 10 percent high-yield pushed the expected return up to 2.9 percent. Not a pretty picture.

Moral of the story: Since most people’s risk tolerance isn’t likely to change dramatically, the amount you save may have to.

Saturday, October 29, 2016


Tomi tells Kaepernick that "if this country disgusts you so much, leave!"

In November 2015, three months after moving to Texas, Tomi began a new show with TheBlaze.

In February 2016, Lahren's criticism of Beyoncé's performance at the Super Bowl 50 halftime show as supporting the Black Panthers caused controversy. In July 2016, Lahren issued a tweet comparing the Black Lives Matter movement to the Ku Klux Klan. As a result, tens of thousands of people signed a petition asking for her to be fired from TheBlaze.

Tomi is my kind of gal!



The renewed FNI email investigation is nothing more than a desperate attempt by James Comey to restore his tarnished reputation and that of the FBI

While investigating Anthony Weiner’s weenie-wave texting to an underage girl, FBI agents discovered what may have been classified State Department emails on his computer. Weenie waver Weiner happens to be the ex-hubby of Hillary’s closest chum, Huma Abedin. Apparently the computer was shared by Huma and her then-hubby and contains hundreds of messages between the Secretary of State and Abedin. Whether or not this involves classified information remains to be seen.

The media is referring to this latest twist in Hillary’s email scandal as a bombshell. Sorry, but for those of us who want to see Hillary’s quest for the presidency disappear in a ball of flames, this is not a bombshell, it’s a dud.

First of all, the renewed investigation is nothing more than a desperate attempt by James Comey to restore his tarnished reputation and that of the FBI.

Furthermore, there is no way this investigation can be completed before election day. Such investigations take weeks, if not months, and the election is less than two weeks away.

And suppose this go-around Comey finds sufficient evidence to seek a criminal indictment against Hillary, do you think Obama’s political hack, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, will allow the FBI to present its findings to a federal grand jury? No way, Jose! Remember, the Attorney General held a private meeting with Bill Clinton on her plane in Phoenix last June when she assured him his wife would not face criminal charges.

But let’s suppose Hillary wins the election and is actually indicted before the January 20 inauguration. That’s no biggie. President Obama, as one of his last acts in office, will simply pardon Hillary. Case closed. Hail to the first woman president.

Anyway, I do not see how this will affect the outcome of the election. Hillary’s supporters are going to vote for her even if she were to burn a baby to death live on TV.

So, Comey’s attempt at redemption is simply a dollar short and a day late.


By Bob Walsh

It was announced Friday that the FBI is taking another look at Hillary's emails. It seems that (if you believe the MSM) while investigating Anthony Weiner (aka Carlos Danger) for sex crimes and going thru his wife's electronic devices they found new emails that shed new light on the Hildebeast's conduct.

Wouldn't it be an absolute hoot if Huma Abadein's sleazeball husband turned out to be the downfall of the Hildebeast? I know that hope clouds reason, but still.......

If the election is close enough, this could push things over the edge. Or not. In eleven days we will know.


Obama has commuted the sentences of 872 federal prisoners - more than the 11 previous Presidents combined

By Dave Burke

Daily Mail
October 28, 2016

Nearly 100 federal inmates are set to be released early after intervention from Barack Obama - meaning the outgoing President has commuted more sentences than his 11 predecessors combined.

A clemency push has sped up in recent months, and on Thursday 98 had their sentences reduced.

Obama has now cut short the sentences of 872 inmates, including 688 this year. The latest batch included 42 who were serving life sentences, the White House confirmed.

By comparison, George W. Bush granted 11 commutations, and Bill Clinton approved 61.

The previous 11 presidents, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush, issued 690 between them. Since 1900, the president to grant the most commutations was Woodrow Wilson, Justice Department figures reveal. He approved 264.

The administration has said the move recognizes the 'personal stories' behind the sentences, and reflects Obama's belief that onerous sentencing requirements put tens of thousands behind bars for far too long, largely as a result of the 'War on Drugs' in the 1980s and 90s.

But critics, including Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, have attacked the policy, accusing Obama of being soft on crime.

At a campaign rally in August, Trump told supporters: 'Some of these people are bad dudes.

'And these are people who are out, they're walking the streets. Sleep tight, folks.'

The President's White House counsel, Neil Eggleston, said: 'These are individuals - many of whom made mistakes at a young age - who have diligently worked to rehabilitate themselves while incarcerated.'

Most of the prisoners had been convicted of nonviolent drug crimes, mostly involving cocaine or methamphetamine.

Some were also serving time for firearms violations in connection to drug trafficking, possession or sales. Almost all are men who come from every corner of the US.

Earlier this month 102 sentences of mostly nonviolent drug offenders were commuted.

These included Lancell Maurice Harris, from Arkansas, who had been jailed for 421 months in 1993 for drug and firearm charges. He is now set to be released in February.

Some of the prisoners will be released early next year, while some will not be freed until as far forward as October 2018.

Among those listed for early release is Massachusetts drug dealer Alberto Lopez, who was serving a life term plus six years' supervised release after being convicted of possession and conspiracy charges related to distribution of heroin and cocaine.

He is due to be set free in February next year.

Obama has used the aggressive pace of his commutations to increase pressure on Congress to pass a broader fix to the justice system while using his executive powers to address individual cases where possible.

Though both parties in Congress have called for a criminal justice overhaul, momentum has mostly petered out, although both Republicans and Democrats agree the issue needs fixing.

Obama has been calling for years for phasing out strict sentences for drug offenses, arguing they lead to excessive punishment and incarceration rates unseen in other developed countries.

With Obama's support, the Justice Department in recent years directed prosecutors to rein in the use of harsh mandatory minimums.

The Obama administration has also expanded criteria for inmates applying for clemency, prioritizing nonviolent offenders who have behaved well in prison, aren't closely tied to gangs and would have received shorter sentences if they had been convicted a few years later.


George W. Bush (2001-2009) - 11
Bill Clinton (1993-2001) - 61
George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) - 3
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) - 13
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) - 29
Gerald Ford (1974-1977) - 22
Richard Nixon (1969-1974) - 60
Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969) - 226
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) - 100
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) - 47
Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) - 118

EDITOR’S NOTE: You can bet that many of the convicts whose sentences Obama commuted were involved in other crimes in addition to drug crimes, some even committing violent crimes, charges for which were dismissed in plea agreements.

As for those non-violent criminals liberals keep weeping and wailing for, a ‘non-violent’ criminal in jail is one less criminal on the streets!


By Bob Walsh

Miranda Kay Rader, 19, managed to tail-end a stopped police car a night or two ago in the city of Bryan, Texas. The Texas A&M student was drunk, and was taking a topless selfie of herself while driving to send to her boyfriend.

Ms. Rader was released on $200 bond and is being charged with DUI and possession of alcohol by a minor. I guess driving topless isn't a violation in Texas. I wonder if she actually got to send her picture and if they used it as her booking photo. Probably not, but still......

Neither car was badly damaged and nobody was hurt.

EDITOR’S NOTE: New Aggie joke. How does an Aggie coed take a selfie of her bare boobs while driving? By crashing into a cop car.


By Bob Walsh

As it turns out the story and video about the creepy clown getting clobbered in Stockton was a complete hoax. The video, which made the regional TV news and other national and even international media was a hoax set up by the "clown" Sadiq Mohammad, 20, who runs a website called

The cops ran down Mohammad and he told them that the participants were all in on it and that the gun was in fact a fake. Since Mohammad did not report the incident to police and copped to the whole thing when he was questioned there was no crime committed, except maybe against good sense and good taste.


A jury exonerated brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy and five others of conspiring to impede federal workers from their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

By Steven DuBois and Gillian Flaccus

Associated Press
October 28, 2016

PORTLAND, Ore. — A jury delivered an extraordinary blow to the government Thursday in a long-running battle over the use of public lands when it acquitted all seven defendants involved in the armed occupation of a national wildlife refuge in rural southeastern Oregon.

Tumult erupted in the courtroom after the verdicts were read when an attorney for group leader Ammon Bundy demanded his client be immediately released, repeatedly yelling at the judge. U.S. marshals tackled attorney Marcus Mumford to the ground, used a stun gun on him several times and arrested him.

U.S. District Judge Anna Brown said she could not release Bundy because he still faces charges in Nevada stemming from an armed standoff at his father Cliven Bundy's ranch two years ago.

The Portland jury acquitted Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy and five others of conspiring to impede federal workers from their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, 300 miles southeast of Portland.

Even attorneys for the defendants were surprised by the acquittals.

"It's stunning. It's a stunning victory for the defense," said Robert Salisbury, attorney for defendant Jeff Banta. "I'm speechless."

Said defendant Neil Wampler: "This is a tremendous victory for rural America and it is a well-deserved, overwhelming defeat for a corrupt and predatory federal government."

The U.S Attorney in Oregon, Billy J. Williams, issued a statement defending the decision to bring charges against the seven defendants: "We strongly believe that this case needed to be brought before a Court, publicly tried, and decided by a jury.

A Bundy daughter, Bailey Logue, said family members were savoring the victory, and would begin Friday to determine their next step.

"First thing, we're going to get down on our knees and thank our Heavenly Father, and we're going to enjoy our families," Logue said. "Tomorrow, we're going to figure out what we're going to do next."

Messages left for Bundy family matriarch Carol Bundy in Bunkerville, Nevada, weren't immediately returned.

The Oregon case is a continuation of the tense standoff with federal officials at Cliven Bundy's ranch in 2014. Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy are among those who are to go on trial in Nevada early next year for that standoff.

While the charges in Oregon accused defendants of preventing federal workers from getting to their workplace, the case in Nevada revolves around allegations of a more direct threat: An armed standoff involving dozens of Bundy backers pointing weapons including assault-style rifles at federal Bureau of Land Management agents and contract cowboys rounding up cattle near the Bundy ranch outside Bunkerville.

Daniel Hill, attorney for Ammon Bundy in the Nevada case, said he believed the acquittal in Oregon bodes well for his client and the other defendants facing felony weapon, conspiracy and other charges.

"When the jury here hears the whole story, I expect the same result," Hill told The Associated Press in Las Vegas.

Hill also said he'll seek his client's release from federal custody pending trial in Nevada.

Ammon Bundy and his followers took over the Oregon bird sanctuary on Jan. 2. They objected to prison sentences handed down to Dwight and Steven Hammond, two local ranchers convicted of setting fires. They demanded the government free the father and son and relinquish control of public lands to local officials.

The Bundys and other key figures were arrested in a Jan. 26 traffic stop outside the refuge that ended with police fatally shooting Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, an occupation spokesman. Most occupiers left after his death, but four holdouts remained until Feb. 11, when they surrendered following a lengthy negotiation.

Federal prosecutors took two weeks to present their case, finishing with a display of more than 30 guns seized after the standoff. An FBI agent testified that 16,636 live rounds and nearly 1,700 spent casings were found.

During trial, Bundy testified that the plan was to take ownership of the refuge by occupying it for a period of time and then turn it over to local officials to use as they saw fit.

Bundy also testified that the occupiers carried guns because they would have been arrested immediately otherwise and to protect themselves against possible government attack.

The bird sanctuary takeover drew sympathizers from around the West.

It also drew a few protesters who were upset that the armed occupation was preventing others from using the land. They included Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Suckling on Thursday called the acquittals "extremely disturbing" for "anyone who cares about America's public lands, the rights of native people and their heritage, and a political system that refuses to be bullied by violence and racism.

"The Bundy clan and their followers peddle a dangerous brand of radicalism aimed at taking over lands owned by all of us. I worry this verdict only emboldens the kind of intimidation and right-wing violence that underpins their movement," Suckling said.

One of Ammon Bundy's attorneys, Morgan Philpot, had a different perspective after watching Mumford get tackled by marshals.

"His liberty was just assaulted by the very government that was supposed to protect it, by the very government that just prosecuted his client — unjustly as the jury found."

There's another Oregon trial coming up over the wildlife refuge.

Authorities had charged 26 occupiers with conspiracy. Eleven pleaded guilty, and another had the charge dropped. Seven defendants chose not to be tried at this time. Their trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 14.


In prison, Watson wrote the book, "Manson's Right-Hand Man Speaks Out," saying the charismatic Manson offered utopia then persuaded his followers to act out his destructive worldview

By Don Thompson

October 28, 2016

California parole officials recommended Thursday that Charles "Tex" Watson, the self-described right-hand man of murderous cult leader Charles Manson, should remain in prison 47 years after he helped plan and carry out the slayings of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and six other people.

Watson's 17th parole hearing was held at Mule Creek State Prison, near Sacramento. He can seek parole again in five years.

Watson, 70, is serving a life sentence for the murders of Tate and four others at her Beverly Hills, California, home on Aug. 9, 1969. The next night, he helped kill grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary.

"These were some of the most horrific crimes in California history, and we believe he continues to exhibit a lack of remorse and remains a public safety risk," Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey said in a statement after the decision.
Watson was initially sentenced to death in the stabbing and shooting rampage, but the sentence was later commuted to life when the California Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that the death penalty was unconstitutional. He currently is in Mule Creek State Prison, near Sacramento.

Sharon Tate's sister, Debra Tate — the last surviving member of her immediate family — urged the panel of parole commissioners to reject freedom for the man she called "the most active, the most prolific killer in the Manson family."

"He's a sociopath, and sociopaths are incapable having insight or empathy for anything. It's all about him. He didn't have it then, and he doesn't have it now," she said after the hearing. She said Watson still blames the murders on his drug use and lack of a clear goal in life rather than accepting full responsibility.

In July, Gov. Jerry Brown reversed a Board of Parole Hearings recommendation that the state release Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, 67, who is serving a life sentence for the La Bianca killings.

In January, he blocked the release of Bruce Davis, 74, another Manson devotee who was convicted in the killings of musician Gary Hinman and stuntman Donald "Shorty" Shea.

In prison, Watson wrote a book, "Manson's Right-Hand Man Speaks Out," saying the charismatic Manson offered utopia, then persuaded his followers to act out his "destructive worldview." Watson has apologized for the killings.

Watson says he converted to Christianity in 1975, founded Abounding Love Ministries in 1980, and ministers to other inmates. He also obtained his college degree behind bars.

Watson wrote that he was raised in Texas and headed to California at 21 against his parents' wishes in 1967 in search of "drugs, sex and rock 'n' roll."

Prosecutors said Manson ordered the murders in hopes of triggering a race war that he dubbed "Helter Skelter," after a Beatles song. The words "Death to Pigs" were written in blood on the wall of the LaBianca residence; "Helter Skelter" was scrawled on the refrigerator; and "rise" was written in blood on the front door.

The idea, authorities said, was that Manson and his followers would rise from the rubble to rule the world.

"Part of what torments me all these years and today is the severity of Charles Watson's crimes and how horribly the victims suffered," Anthony DiMaria, a nephew of Jay Sebring, who was killed with Tate, wrote in remarks to parole commissioners.

He cited seven gunshots — all fired by Watson — along with 170 stab wounds and 13 blows to the victims with blunt objects.

After the board's decision Thursday night, DiMaria said "the 5 year denial (of parole) was a fair decision."

"With crimes of this magnitude, I felt profound sorrow for what the victims suffered, for the family members and representatives who spoke in the room ... and for what Charles Watson brought upon himself," he said.

Watson wrote in his book that there was no concern for the victims during the rampage.

"There was a total disregard for life. I was concerned with destroying everyone and not getting discovered," he wrote. "In some ways, punishment escaped my mind since Helter Skelter was coming down and society, as we knew it, was coming to an end."

Watson's attorney, Kendrick Jan, did not respond to repeated requests for comment. A message left for supporters running Watson's Abounding Love Ministries website also was not returned.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Watson had been a star football player in high school, Collin County Sheriff Tom Montgomery, was Watson’s legal guardian. In 1970, Sheriff Montgomery and Bill Boyd, a former district attorney, blocked Watson’s extradition from Texas to California for months.

At the time, the goof sheriff said:

“I can’t talk about it much, you know, You know I’m the boy’s second cousin. His mother’s daddy was my daddy’s brother. But I don’t think they’ve ever established that that Charles was in the Tate house — or that other place [the LaBianca house], either. And this boy was raised in the church house. Why his mother and dad are the finest people you’ll ever meet. It’s awfully hard for people around here to think he could ever have done the stuff he’s been accused of doing.”

Hey, all you non-Texans, us church-going folks here in Texas look after our church-raised Texans.


Eric Garner's daughter, Erica, goes on the attack against Hillary Clinton, claiming hacked emails show the campaign discussed 'using' her father's death to 'push gun control'

By Liam Quinn

Daily Mail
October 28, 2016

The daughter of a man choked to death by New York police has hit out at the Clinton campaign, accusing it of plotting to 'use' her father's killing to its advantage.

Erica Garner went after Hillary Clinton's team after the latest batch of hacked emails released by Wikileaks.

'I'm troubled by the revelation that you and this campaign actually discussed "using" Eric Garner … Why would you want to 'use my dad?' Garner tweeted on Thursday.

Hacked emails show Clinton's traveling press secretary Nick Merrill had a discussion with other staff members about whether or not Eric Garner should be included in an op-ed about gun violence that was published in March.

'I know we have Erica Garner issues but we don't want to mention Eric at all? I can see her coming after us for leaving him out of the piece,' Merrill wrote.

Senior policy advisor Maya Harris replied: 'Eric Garner not included because not killed by gun violence.'

Ultimately, Garner was not included in the published piece. The emails do not show the campaign make direct mention of any plans to 'use' the 43-year-old's death.

During her tweet-storm on Thursday, Garner said: 'These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence.'

'What really pisses me off is that the Clinton camp won't just admit these emails belong to them.'

She also responded to an email that identified her as a potential issue for the campaign.

'I'm vey (sic) interested to know exactly what @CoreyCiorciari meant when he said "I know we have an Erica Garner problem" in the #PodestaEmails19,' she tweeted.

Ciorciari is a policy advisor for the Democratic nominee.

Garner endorsed Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primaries, and has been a strong critic of Clinton on social media.

However, she also attacked Republican nominee Donald Trump on Thursday night, calling him a 'racist'.

'My beef with Hillary doesnt make Trump less racist. PERIOD,' she tweeted.

'Trump denied Black people housing, um plus the central park 5 needing to be executed oh and his comments on Mexicans. He's racist.'

Garner's criticism of Hillary is in contrast to the support her grandmother, Gwen Carr, has given the Democratic nominee.

Carr officially endorsed Clinton earlier this year, citing her ability to tackle gun violence and racial injustice.

'Hillary seems to be the only candidate right now who's talking about how we can be strategic in trying to solve this problem. That's why I'm endorsing her for president,' she wrote in an email to supporters.

Eric Garner was strangled to death after being stopped for selling loose cigarettes in Staten Island on July 17, 2014.

The incident was filmed and shows officer Daniel Pantaleo, 31, putting Garner in a chokehold as the father-of-six shouted, 'I can't breathe', 11 times before passing out and dying.

Friday, October 28, 2016


The initials ‘FBI’ now stand for the “Fix Be In”

By Debra J. Saunders

San Francisco Chronicle
October 26, 2016

The FBI’s reputation has sunk so low under the Obama administration that its initials seem to stand for: The Fix Be In. The bureau’s no-hurry investigation into Hillary Clinton’s deleted State Department emails seemed engineered to see no evil. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is replacing FBI agents and prosecutors who oppose charging New York police in the choke-hold death of Eric Garner (because they aren’t sure the police committed a crime and don’t think they can get a conviction) with staff who want to throw the book at the NYPD.

Pundits have voiced their fear that Trump would use the Justice Department to go after his political enemies — and rightly so after Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton and send her to jail. (So much for the presumption of innocence.) How can these same critics not see how the Obama Department of Justice has turned into a political arm of the Democratic Party?

Consider the Clinton investigation. The FBI granted limited immunity to five Clinton aides, including Paul Combetta, who deleted Clinton emails in March 2015 after Congress had subpoenaed her records. FBI agents waited a year before they questioned Clinton in July for an hour and a half. Shortly thereafter, Director James Comey said there would be no indictment in the case; even though Clinton did not hand over “several thousand” work emails to the State Department, there was no proof of “intentional misconduct.”

Lynch didn’t help herself when she met privately with former President Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac on July 2, while the investigation was under way. Lynch later admitted the meeting “cast a shadow” on her decision-making on the case, but assured the public she would “be accepting” the FBI prosecutors’ recommendation.

New York Police should be so lucky. As the Times reported, FBI officials in New York oppose bringing charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo and others involved in the 2014 arrest of Eric Garner, 43, for selling bootleg cigarettes. Pantaleo wrapped an arm around Garner’s neck. Garner protested, “I can’t breathe.” (After an ambulance arrived, Garner had a heart attack.)

It is painful to watch video of the fateful arrest, but a state grand jury saw the video, heard Pantaleo testify that he did not mean to use a choke hold, and chose not to bring charges in December 2014. The grand jury did not see intentional misconduct.

Brooklyn FBI officials who investigated Garner’s death oppose prosecuting Pantaleo and his fellow officers. Rather than heed them, Lynch is steering the case toward Washington staff in the Justice Department’s civil rights division who want to prosecute the arresting officers.

Clinton gets every consideration, NYPD gets every doubt. Pantaleo’s attorney Stuart London told the Times, “In our system of justice, politics should never take the place of rule of law.” That’s a quaint thought, but in this Obama administration there is a clear double standard. The bar is so unreasonably high there is no way prosecutors can establish if Clinton meant to break the law, but the Justice Department has few qualms about presuming the worst about beat cops.


By Bob Walsh

A few days ago in beautiful downtown Stockton a professional prankster though it would be "fun" to dress up as a creepy clown and scare people while his assistant recorded the "fun." This asshole has 7 million followers so I guess some people are amused by this.

Anyway he picked the wrong guy. He tried it on some adult black man dressed in black who happened to be carrying a gun, presumably illegally. He didn't run, and didn't startle. He pulled out his gat and thumped the clown with it a few times, after which the clown and the cameraman beat feat with unseemly haste.

The creepy clown said he is retiring the clown suit. For some strange reason he is afraid he might get shot.


By Craig Malisow

Houston Press
August 19, 2016

The lawyers representing a Pakistani native in a high-profile Houston divorce case say the man's estranged wife's family may be behind the murder of a witness scheduled to testify in Houston next week.

In one of the most bizarre motions we've ever seen, lawyers for Mohammad Ali Choudhri claimed Wednesday that attorney Fahad Malik — who was shot to death in his car in Islamabad on Monday — was killed because he planned to testify that Choudhri's wife, Hira Azhar, was already married to a different man when she wedded Choudhri in 2008.

Malik was representing Azhar's alleged first husband, who had already gone into hiding over death threats from Azhar's relatives, according to the emergency motion written in hardboiled-detective-story prose (and we mean that as a compliment) by lawyer Doug York.

But first, let's back up a bit: Choudhri, a wealthy real estate magnate who spends a great amount of time suing people and being sued, married Azhar in Pakistan, when she was 18 and he was 28. (The marriage was arranged, as many are in Pakistan.)

Choudhri returned to Houston shortly afterwards, and Azhar followed in 2010. But Choudhri claims that he divorced Azhar in 2012 by invoking a Muslim ritual of "talaq" — saying "I divorce you" three times in a row — on the day she flew to Pakistan to visit family.

Choudhri later filed a formal divorce petition in Pakistan, and Azhar filed her own petition in Houston. Now, courts in Texas and Pakistan are trying to hash out who has jurisdiction.

In a 17-page affidavit, Azhar describes Choudhri as a monstrous man-child who not only lived with his parents, but preferred to sleep between them in bed, rather than sleep with his wife.

She accuses Choudhri of hitting, kicking and choking her; of isolating her from friends; and of treating her like a servant. According to Azhar, Choudhri's sense of superiority knew no bounds; he allegedly made her kiss his feet and once beat her after she confronted him with evidence of an affair that she found on his cell phone.

Choudhri argues that the Pakistan court has jurisdiction, and, in a surprise move just weeks before the scheduled August 23 hearing, Choudhri's lawyers say they found documentation showing that Azhar had married another man six months before meeting Choudhri.

Azhar denies the allegation, and her lawyers say the marriage license is a fake.

Enter Fahad Malik, an Islamabad attorney who allegedly represented the alleged first husband, which we realize is a lot of allegedlies, but since there's a vast amount of alleged hogwash being slung in this case, it's difficult to tell what's what.

Malik was scheduled to testify he did indeed represent Faisal Zafar Malik (no relation, as far as we know), the man who claimed to be the first husband, and that his client was in fact married to Azhar.

In an affidavit, Faisal Malik, who was born in the U.K. and is a British citizen, swore that he married Azhar in front of witnesses in May 2008, and that she wanted to move to England. He alleged that "on or near 2009," she cut off contact with him. But that's not all; Faisal Malik also offers relevant details like "I used to drive a 7 series blue BMW" and "on many occasions, I picked up [Azhar] and she rode in my BMW." (In a twist worthy of M. Night Shyamalan, the affidavit also states that he also once drove her in a Honda Civic.)

According to the emergency motion filed Wednesday, Faisal Malik was going to testify, but was scared after "men with guns" went to his home and threatened him. The man "had to flee the area in fear of his life."

As York notes in the motion, "it was reported that Hira Azhar's uncle had gang type ties and was capable of carrying out deadly threats." Exactly who "reported" this is unclear, as is much of the emergency motion, which is thoroughly unencumbered by supporting evidence for these threats, and contains passages like this:

"The first husband's attorney reported that it was getting extremely 'hot' for his client, that the intimidation of death was accompanied with a bribe request of $300,000 for either stating that he was never married to Hira Azhar, or...'disappear' and never testify against Hira Azhar."

That's some shrewd planning by these "gang-type" men — they threaten to kill a dude while simultaneously offering him a boatload of cash. That's what's known, in gang-type parlance, as covering your bases. But we digress.

Pakistani news reports of Malik's murder are light on details. Ary News reported that Malik and an associate were shot as they left a police station, shortly after Malik tried to mediate a skirmish between the associate and a rival group. The skirmish was allegedly "over a girl." (According to Propakistani, the skirmish started over a comment posted on Facebook.)

York stops just short of formally saying Azhar's family did the whacking or paid for it; he just allows the reader to connect the dots. This gives enough room to throw in other potential conspirators, like long-time Choudhri nemesis Osama Abdullatif, with whom Choudhri has been embroiled in lengthy, convoluted litigation. (Choudhri's lawyers say that Abdullatif helped Azhar return to Houston and has been supporting her financially.)

The motion alleges that Choudhri won a multimillion-dollar judgment against Abdullatif, which was "the proverbial 'last straw'" for Abdullatif, who "sought out ways to recoup his monies and 'get Mr. Choudhri.'"

To wit:

"It should be noted that during a time when Ali Choudhri and Osama Abdullatif were going through a civil lawsuit, it is well documented that [Abdullatif] employed the same tactics when approximately ten persons with guns stormed into [Choudhri's] office making threats."

However, Lloyd Kelley, another lawyer representing Choudhri, told the Houston Press that while it's not clear if Malik's murder was connected to the Choudhri case, Malik had recently said he was concerned about his safety.

"He told me last week that people were following him and he was very worried," Kelley said. "...He believed that he was in danger and that [Faisal Malik] was in danger."

Kelley said that the emergency motion (which he said he didn't read) was a response to Azhar's attorneys' request to conduct depositions in Pakistan, and that the main purpose was to show Judge David Farr that it would be dangerous to drag Houston lawyers into Pakistani court proceedings.

Thursday, October 27, 2016


By Bob Walsh

Bayzle Dylan Morgan, 25, is currently a guest of the people of Clark County, Nevada. He is currently undergoing trial for capital murder. He wants to wear makeup at his trial. Clark County District Court Judge Michelle Leavitt just recently told him to pound sand.

He doesn’t want to hide an acne scare or enhance his eyes. He wants to cover up the Nazi tattoos on his face.

Morgan has a swastika and clover under his left eye and the words MOST WANTED across his forehead. He has BABY NAZI on his neck and has various white supremacist tattoos in place of normal eyebrows.

During another trial when Morgan was found guilty of threatening a man and ripping off his motorcycle the judge ordered Morgan to cover the tattoos. He is awaiting sentencing on that case.

Morgan is undergoing trial for beating and shooting to death a 75-year old woman in her home. He pistol-whipped her so vigorously he broke the trigger guard of his pistol, then shot the woman in the back of the head.

Morgan’s getaway driver, who never entered the house, has been sentenced to 4-10 years on burglary.

The judge has said she believes Morgan can get a fair trial despite his unusual personal decorations, which some people may find offensive.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s see now. If Morgan were to be tried by a jury of his peers, his jury would be composed of white supremacists and neo-Nazis who would acquit him as fast as O.J. Simpson’s jury acquitted that scumbag.


ISIS, like the matador’s red cape, distracts from the truly mortal danger—a nuclear Iran chanting ‘Death to America.’

By Mark Helprin

The Wall Street Journal
October 23, 2016

By all means, take Mosul, and continue on until ISIS is no more.

But ISIS, also known as Islamic State, is and has been the wrong focus. Were it not holding hostage the scattered populations it controls in urban areas, a properly directed military coalition of two or three Western powers, or the United States alone, could roll it up in a week. Even as things are, and despite the chaos and cross-loyalties in the present theater of war, with competent diplomacy and military force ISIS could be crushed in a matter of months. The key is NATO’s activation under Article 5 in behalf of alliance member Turkey, which, if only technically, has nonetheless come sufficiently under attack to do so.

With air support from American and French carriers in the Mediterranean, the U.S. Air Force at Incirlik and Gulf bases, and the Turkish, Saudi, and Gulf States air forces, in very short order Turkish divisions from the north could link up with Saudi, Jordanian and an Egyptian expeditionary force from the south, stiffened by American, British, and other NATO units where needed, to cut Syria in half. With Kurds and Iraqis closing from the east, this would simultaneously surround ISIS and confine the Syrian regime in a truncated enclave shielded by its Russian patrons.

The primary purpose of such action, however, would not be to defeat ISIS. Though at the moment ISIS is undeniably the most publicity-rich and barbaric of the jihadist movements, in relation to its structure and resources its ambition to unify the Islamic world has—as in the case of bin Laden, Nasser, and the Mahdi of the Sudan—doomed it from the start. While much has been made of its links to other jihadists in Africa and elsewhere, these alliances have little practical effect, being little more than the distant salutes from one group of psychotics to another. That ISIS has survived for years is less a testament to it than an indictment of the quaking West.

Much more befitting of the power and history of the U.S. and its allies would be to sever and destroy the toxic, threatening bridge that Iran has built from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, with, astoundingly, the patronage of the president of the United States. Anchored by soon-to-be-nuclear Iran, an integrated politico-religious-military front including Shiite-directed Iraq, Syria and Lebanon will emerge in the near future if current trajectories remain undisturbed.

This entity will have a population almost half that of the United States; the immense oil wealth of Iran and Iraq; ports on the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean; nuclear weapons; ICBMs; and, until it will no longer need Russia, for which it has no brief, the mischievous and destructive cooperation of Vladimir Putin.

If, under the discipline of an Iran drunk with its successful bamboozling of the West, this power turns its eyes south to Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the Middle East will be entirely transformed. When Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, so will Saudi Arabia. The Shiite population of the Gulf States will be emboldened. Egypt will have to choose appeasement or standing with its Sunni co-religionists. How these elements would sort themselves out cannot be known in advance, but keep in mind that the cultures and governments of the Islamic world are hardly shy about violence and war.

The particular irony here is that during the Cold War the U.S. and Britain created the toothless and ineffective Central Treaty Organization (Cento), known, until 1959 when Iraq dropped out, as the Baghdad Pact. Cento was created to throw the same east-west bar across the Middle East (then including Pakistan) that Iran is in the latter stages of securing. The purpose was to block Soviet expansion southward toward warm-water ports. Despite the efforts of Eisenhower and Dulles, Cento quickly became an alliance just in name.

President Obama has succeeded where they could not, in building that structure—for Iran. For the leading state sponsor of terrorism. For a fanatical nation that in 10 years or less will possess nuclear warheads and ICBMs. For a nation that captures and humiliates our citizens, diplomats and sailors, that supplied the focused charges that killed our soldiers in Iraq, and that chants “Death to America” at the opening of its parliament.

Iran need not fulfill any part of the nuclear agreement it has not even signed and that in the view of our State Department is not legally binding. Even if it were, who knows how the Farsi text might be interpreted? Yet, despite Iran’s violations of United Nations resolutions and its ongoing depredations across the Middle East, we honor and exceed our “obligations,” and shower the Iranians with money, ransom, access, encouragement, and protection. Only the genius of Barack Obama and the cunning of John Kerry (in his presence the Iranians understandably smiled with joy) were capable of achieving this while simultaneously bringing about the reintroduction of Russia into the region, in force—a feat that over 42 years and 10 administrations, Republican and Democrat, no one else was able to accomplish.

Before World War I, the U.S. was focused on Pancho Villa, and sent a much heralded expedition that failed to catch him. But even as he was fading away, he captured the American imagination. All the while, Germany was rising, and because we were unable to see how this would play out, and because some saw Germany as our natural ally, we were blind to it.

Now we are blinded to Iran in favor of ISIS—in its horror and sensationalism the matador’s red cape that distracts from the truly mortal threat, the sword. We know that the Iranians are skillfully using this dynamic. The question is, given Mr. Obama’s seemingly inexplicable yet indefatigable sponsorship of Iran, and his slow-motion approach to ISIS, is he using it as well?


Now, because of two Bakersfield cops, dozens of criminal cases could be in jeopardy

By Richard Winton

Los Angeles Times
October 26, 2016

Four years ago on a sweltering afternoon, Bakersfield Police Det. Damacio Diaz was sitting in his car alongside informant Guillermo “Memo” Magallanes.

About $15,000 stuck out of Magallanes’ shorts. When the informant left, the narcotics detective found just under $1,000 in the passenger-side door pocket.

“He told me to take my wife out on a date or buy my kids something,” Diaz would later recall in court papers. “It is a day I truly regret and a decision that has changed my entire life.”

That decision also rocked the Kern County criminal justice system, marking the beginning of an ugly police corruption scandal involving cash, drugs and protection. Diaz and his partner, Patrick Mara, later admitted to ripping off drug dealers of their methamphetamine during traffic stops. Diaz then began cooperating with federal investigators and named other cops he said were corrupt.

Now, local prosecutors say the scandal jeopardizes other criminal cases.

Kern County Dist. Atty. Lisa Green is sending letters to defendants in 64 potentially tainted criminal convictions after her office examined scores of convictions involving the work of the disgraced pair.

“The disgraceful and criminal behavior of Diaz and Mara has gravely impacted the Bakersfield Police Department as well as our community as a whole,” she said.

Prosecutors are specifically reexamining cases from 2011 to 2014, when the partners were committing crimes.

“If they took statements, seized evidence or wrote reports, we will be sending letters to defense attorneys or defendants that represented themselves,” she said.

Two misdemeanor prostitution cases in which Diaz as an undercover detective was the only witness have already been dismissed.

It was a huge fall from grace for Diaz, who was well known in the Central Valley as being a member of the high school cross-country running team portrayed in the 2015 Disney movie “McFarland, USA.”

Green’s office reviewed 87 cases of the detectives involving 123 defendants before deciding to send the letters. Diaz, a 17-year Bakersfield cop, worked on 32 cases involving 53 defendants, with 20 requiring letters, she said. Mara, a 13-year veteran, had 55 cases involving 70 defendants. Forty-four of his cases will result in letters.

Defendants could seek motions for a new trial or to withdraw pleas in some cases. The district attorney’s office is prepared to retry the cases if necessary, Assistant Dist. Atty. Scott Spielman said.

The ramifications of the corruption scandal could be large.

“How is the district attorney going to oppose any motion for a new trial when these investigators have admitted to such rogue behavior?” said Ben Meiselas, who is representing several families suing the Bakersfield police, included a man shot while allegedly an informant for Mara.

Defense attorneys compared the Bakersfield situation to the Los Angeles Police Department’s Rampart scandal in the late 1990s, in which corrupt officers tainted cases. More than 100 convictions were overturned as a result.

“What is going on here is really outrageous,” said criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos.

Acting U.S. Atty. Phillip A. Talbert said the two detectives were specially selected for a joint drug task force in a region plagued by methamphetamine.

“They became the drug traffickers themselves,” he said. “Their actions risked their fellow officers' safety for greed.”

Both officers have expressed remorse.

Diaz said that his time as a narcotics detective drove him to a life of drinking and that Magallanes, a drug dealer and a prominent member of the Mexican Mafia, became more friend than informant.

Mara said that when he partnered up with Diaz in spring 2012, Diaz walked out of a bedroom and handed him “a few hundred dollars, while he stuck a large amount of money into his own pockets,” according to court papers.

That year, Mara filed for bankruptcy and said he was drinking heavily.

Soon Diaz and Mara were getting into other illegal activities, authorities said. Federal prosecutors in court sentencing documents said Mara had two patrol officers stop a vehicle the detectives knew was carrying 5 pounds of methamphetamine. They pocketed 4 pounds and turned in just a pound as evidence, officials said. This behavior became common, prosecutors said.

Diaz’s loyalty to Magallanes would be his downfall. The detective tipped him off about a Drug Enforcement Administration wiretap that captured him chatting, advising him “to lay low,” according to documents. Magallanes then told another drug dealer to dump his phone.

Assistant U.S. Atty Brian Delaney said Magallanes was arrested in a separate case and told officials about Diaz.

Diaz would quickly implicate Mara and then suggest others were making money too.

“He gave them information to clean up the department,” said his lawyer, David Torres, in an interview. But U.S. Atty. Talbert said that “we concluded no officers were complicit in joining Diaz and Mara,” and that no further prosecutions were planned at this time.

During the investigation, five other officers were placed on administrative leave related to the investigation and one recently resigned.

But Bakersfield Police Chief Greg Williamson said the federal and internal inquiries after 18 months cleared them all.

“They investigated every name that came up, uncovered every rock, and no one else’s name came to light in their scandal,” the chief said. “We have also done internal investigations on many allegations that were made and once again they have been unable to uncover” anything.

Still, Williamson said, the corrupt detectives had eroded trust with the community.

Diaz this summer pleaded guilty to bribery, drug trafficking and tax evasion, and Mara admitted to selling methamphetamine. Both are about to begin five-year federal prison sentences for their crimes.


Frederic Reamer’s book On the Parole Board lifts the veil on a justice system process through dozens of case files in Rhode Island over 24 years

By Daniel Bates

The Guardian
October 25, 2016

Some cases kept Frederic Reamer up at night.

During his 24 years on the Rhode Island parole board, Reamer met murderers who had repented and killers who had begged for forgiveness. Reamer’s job was to decide whether they had done enough to be freed.

After studying case files and prison reports, on the day of the parole hearing Reamer would meet the victims in the morning and the criminals in the afternoon. Reamer called these days gut-wrenching.

The hardest cases, by far, were always those where the victim was adamant about not paroling this inmate because of the horror.

“And then on the other side of the coin an inmate demonstrates genuine, profound, impressive insight, they’ve worked very hard at their issues,” Reamer said. “When you try to boil down justice, what’s the right thing to do in those instances?”

Reamer’s new book, On The Parole Board: Reflections on Crime, Punishment and Redemption, which is out next month on Columbia University Press, goes through dozens of cases where this tension plays out. His aim is to “lift back the curtain” on the parole process, which allows a group of unelected officials to have enormous influence on the criminal justice system.

According to the Pew Research Centre, one in 31 adults, or 7.3 million people, are in prison or on parole in the US. All but three state parole boards have some degree of control over prisoners’ release – but almost half of all states keep parole files secret, meaning there is little accountability.

Reamer, who has spent his life in academia and is currently a professor of social work at Rhode Island College, said he took his responsibilities seriously.

He said deciding on parole is “not just an intellectual exercise” and is something that affected him deeply: “For me, much of this work requires deep looks at the personal, the very emotional quality of these cases. This is not mental gymnastics, trying to put all of this data into in an equation and reaching a decision. There’s a lot of pathos, there’s a lot of emotion and a lot of tears.”

Among the cases in the book is Robert Blane, who set fire to an apartment block where he worked as a maintenance man, severely burning a five-year-old boy and his father.

The father, Alexis Ronaldo, told the board: “Every day I stare down at my legs I am reminded of the fire.” He said he cannot work, he can barely walk and watching his son experience the same agony makes him sometimes wish he died in the blaze.

During his parole hearing Blane, a model prisoner, was told about this and started crying. He said: “I feel awful. Just awful. I can’t wrap my mind around the fact that I did that to another human being. No one deserves that. I hate myself for what I did. Mr Ronaldo and his son have every right to hate me and to want me to stay in prison. How can I blame them for that?”

At that hearing, Blane had only served a third of his sentence and his parole was denied.

The case that stuck with Reamer the most was Dave Sempsrott, who became his pen pal for 30 years after they met at a support group in prison.

Over dozens of letters, some of which Reamer shared with the Guardian, Sempsrott opened up about why in 1977, whilst high on PCP, he stabbed to death his best friend Don, Don’s wife and their four-year-old daughter.

His explanation is blunt and chilling: “I cannot give you any reason as to why I committed these murders. I do not know and I don’t think I ever will. I remember no argument at all; I was not mad at Don. He was my best friend. What can I say?”

On the other hand Reamer came to respect Sempsrott, who died in prison in 2013, for the letters in which he accepted what he did. “I think he felt so horrible about what he had done there was a part of him that wanted the world to know how badly he felt because that didn’t come out at the trial. His defence attorneys don’t want you talking about that stuff. I think this was his opportunity to say to the world, I know I messed up”.

Reamer, 63, who worked as a parole board officer from 1992 until January this year, said he has a “pretty good radar” for when prisoners are lying.

He cites one inmate who would take his crucifix out of his shirt so the board could see it during the interview, as if to show off his faith. “There will always be a certain type of inmate who is so manipulative, so cunning I would never vote to parole, but that’s not the norm. Most people admit their guilt and want to work on their issues,” Reamer said.

Sometimes, however, Reamer was fooled or he simply made the wrong call, and a prisoner would reoffend after being released. During his 24 years on the job, he decided on around 25,000 cases and whilst he did not let anyone out to kill again, some criminals committed offenses like domestic violence and assault. Reamer calls such eventualities one of “inherent risks of this kind of work” and a risk we should accept.

“The only way to prevent that happening is to never release anybody,” he said. “It is a fact of life, I’m not happy about it, that some of these are not going to have good endings but on balance a system where people earn their way out of prison ... I truly believe in the long run enhances public safety”.

Reamer says that from his experience, Rhode Island parole board officers were diligent, but across the US the parole system has faced criticism.

A months long investigation by the Marshall Project found that most boards are secretive, unaccountable and overly cautious. A recent update of the Model Penal Code, which is written by respected legal scholars, said that parole boards were “failed institutions”.

Reamer says that he did not think it was fair to make such a sweeping statement because there is a lot of variation within parole boards across the US.

Unlike many other states Rhode Island publishes its parole board minutes and provides data on how many prisoners are being set free each month. But Reamer admits that in his 24 years on the job nobody was fired by the Rhode Island governor, who was technically their supervisor.

“Is there a great deal of room for improvement? Yes. Are some boards too conservative? Yes. Are some risk averse? I’m willing to believe that.”

Another criticism of parole boards is that they are stuffed with friends of the state governors or a reward to big donors.

On this Reamer is his most outspoken. “These are not positions that should be left to the governor’s friends or those who contributed to the campaign. There’s just too much at stake here. It’s unconscionable to appoint people who do not have the expertise, it’s absolutely unconscionable and does it happen? I imagine it does.”


If you want a good answer, just ask a little kid. Here is what some little kids wrote down when asked questions about personal relationships.


You got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. Like, if you like sports, she should like it that you like sports, and she should keep the chips and dip coming.
-- Alan, age 10

No person really decides before they grow up who they're going to marry. God decides it all way before, and you get to find out later who you're stuck with.
-- Kristen, age 10


Twenty-three is the best age because you know the person FOREVER by then..
-- Camille, age 10


You might have to guess, based on whether they seem to be yelling at the same kids.
-- Derrick, age 8


Both don't want any more kids.
-- Lori, age 8


Dates are for having fun, and people should use them to get to know each other. Even boys have something to say if you listen long enough.
-- Lynnette, age 8 (Give her an A+)

On the first date, they just tell each other lies and that usually gets them interested enough to go for a second date.
-- Martin, age 10


When they're rich.
-- Pam, age 7 (Give her an A+ too)

The law says you have to be eighteen, so I wouldn't want to mess with that.
- - Curt, age 7

The rule goes like this: If you kiss someone, then you should marry them and have kids
with them. It's the right thing to do.
-- Howard, age 8


It's better for girls to be single but not for boys. Boys need someone to
clean up after them.
-- Anita, age 9 (Another A+)


There sure would be a lot of kids to explain, wouldn't there?
-- Kelvin, age 8


Tell your wife that she looks pretty, even if she looks like a dump truck.
-- Ricky, age 9 (Give him an A++ for the best answer)

Wednesday, October 26, 2016


80% of whites and 67% of nonwhites say they have "a great deal" of respect for the police in their area

by Justin McCarthy

October 24, 2016

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Three in four Americans (76%) say they have "a great deal" of respect for the police in their area, up 12 percentage points from last year.

In addition to the large majority of Americans expressing "a great deal" of respect for their local police, 17% say they have "some" respect while 7% say they have "hardly any."

Gallup has asked this question nine times since 1965. The percentage who say they respect the police is significantly higher now than in any measurement taken since the 1990s and is just one point below the high of 77% recorded in 1967. Solid majorities of Americans have said they respect their local law enforcement in all polls conducted since 1965.

The latest figures, from Gallup's Oct. 5-9 annual poll on crime, show Americans' respect for police increased as the number of on-duty police officers who were shot and killed was on the rise.

Americans' confidence in police has also increased after falling to a 22-year low in 2015 and recovering in this year's poll. The latter was conducted in early June, before police officers were shot and killed in separate incidents in Texas and Louisiana.

Respect for Police Up Sharply Among Both Whites and Nonwhites

The increase in shootings of police coincided with high-profile incidents of law enforcement officials shooting and killing unarmed black men. Despite the flaring of racial tensions after these incidents, respect for local police has increased among both whites and nonwhites.

Four in five whites (80%) say they have a great deal of respect for police in their area, up 11 points from last year. Meanwhile, two in three nonwhites (67%) report having the same level of respect, an increase of 14 points from last year.

Since 2000, whites have been more likely than nonwhites to say they respect local law enforcement.

Respect for Police Up Among Age and Party Groups in 2016

In addition to the increases across racial groups, respect for local law enforcement has increased among most political party, ideological and age groups. It has also improved among city, suburban and rural area residents. Liberals, rural residents and young adults saw the sharpest increases -- of 19 to 21 points -- from 2015 to 2016.

Respect for police remains highest among Republicans (86%) and conservatives (85%), but solid majorities of Democrats (68%) and liberals (71%) report the same level of respect.

Adults aged 55 and older (81%) are more likely than those aged 18 to 34 (69%) to have a great deal of respect for police.

About four in five Americans who say they live in a suburb (82%) or a town or rural area (80%) report having a great deal of respect for local police officers, higher than the percentage of those who live in small or large cities (68%) who say the same.

Bottom Line

The sharp increase over the past year in professed respect for local law enforcement comes as many police say they feel they are on the defensive -- both politically and for their lives while they are on duty -- amid heated national discussions on police brutality and shootings. After an officer was killed by a gunman in Harlem last year, then-New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton warned that the U.S. has fostered "an anti-police attitude that has grown" and that the national dialogue on police-community relations needs to discourage individuals who "exhibit anti-police behavior or attitudes."

Louisiana became the first state to pass a bill that treats acts targeted against police officers as a hate crime. Other states are discussing passing similar laws. It's unclear whether the spike in respect for police will have staying power or if it reflects mostly a reaction to the retaliatory killings against police officers last summer.

Although confidence in police varies among subgroups, majorities of all groups say they have a great deal of respect for their local police. And the percentage of national adults who say they have "hardly any" respect for local law enforcement remains small.

EDITORS NOTE: I believe the surge of respect for the police results from the Black Lives Matter-inspired cop killings.

With 67% of nonwhites saying they have "a great deal" of respect for the police, this Gallup poll belies the media fed perception that minorities distrust the police.


Four studies out this year show that if police are biased, it’s in favor of blacks

By Heather Mac Donald

The Wall Street Journal
October 24, 2016

FBI Director James Comey has again defied the official White House line on policing and the
Black Lives Matter movement. The “narrative that policing is biased and violent and unfair” is
resulting in “more dead young black men,” Mr. Comey warned in an Oct. 16 address to the
International Association of Chiefs of Police in San Diego. That narrative, he added, also
“threatens the future of policing.”

Mr. Comey has spoken out before. In October 2015, after he observed that rising violent crime
was likely the result of officers backing off proactive policing, President Obamaobliquely
accused the FBI director of “cherry-pick[ing] data” and “feed[ing] political agendas.”

But as much as Mr. Obama has tried to dismiss the violent crime increase that began after the
2014 fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., the data are clear.

Last year’s 12% increase in homicides reported to the FBI is the largest one-year homicide
increase in nearly half a century. The primary victims have been black. An additional 900 black
males were killed last year compared with the previous year, resulting in a homicide
victimization rate that is now nine times greater for black males than for white males, according
to a Guardian study. The brutality of these killings can be shocking. Over the weekend of Sept.
16, a 15-year-old boy in Chicago was burned alive in a dumpster.

More police are being killed this year too. Gun murders of police officers are up 47% nationally
through Oct. 21, compared with the same period the previous year. In Chicago gun assaults on
officers are up 100%. In New York City attacks on officers are up 23%. In the last two weeks,
four California officers have been deliberately murdered.

Gangbanger John Felix prepared for his lethal attack on two Palm Springs officers on Oct. 8 by
setting a trap and ambushing them as they stood outside his door. Two days earlier,
parolee Trenton Trevon Lovell shot Los Angeles Sheriff’s Sgt. Steve Owen in the face as he
investigated a burglary call. Lovell then stood over Sgt. Owen and fired four additional rounds
into his body. A planned assassination of two officers on coffee break in Vallejo, Calif., on Oct.
17 failed only when the assault rifle used in the attack jammed. In Indianapolis on Oct. 13, police
headquarters were sprayed with bullets by a car that then fled, echoing a similar attack on Oct. 4
against the same police station.

Officers are second-guessing their own justified use of force for fear of being labeled racist and
losing their jobs, if not their freedom. On Oct. 5 a female officer in Chicago was beaten
unconscious by a suspect in a car crash, who repeatedly bashed her face into the concrete and
tore out chunks of her hair. She refrained from using her gun, she said, because she didn’t want
to become the next viral video in the Black Lives Matter narrative.

The Chicago Police Department now wants to institutionalize such dangerous second-guessing.
Its proposed guidelines for using force would require cops to consider the “impact that even a
reasonable use of force may have on those who observe” it.

A Los Angeles police officer recently described to me his current thought process in deciding
whether to intervene in suspicious or criminal behavior. A man high on meth was violently
accosting pedestrians around a Santa Monica bike path. The cops were “very hesitant to arrest,”
the officer said, because “we knew we would be on YouTube before we could get back to the
station.” That reluctance to make contact intensifies when the suspect is black, he added.

The Black Lives Matter narrative about an epidemic of racially biased police shootings is false:
Four studies published this year showed that if there is a bias in police shootings, it works in
favor of blacks and against whites. Officers’ use of lethal force following an arrest for a violent
felony is more than twice the rate for white as for black arrestees, according to one study.
Another study showed that officers were three times less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects
than unarmed whites.

We are at a crucial juncture on law and order. Police officers unquestionably need more hands-on tactical training that will help them make split-second shoot-don’t shoot decisions. Some officers develop obnoxious attitudes toward civilians that must be eradicated. But as Mr. Comey said in San Diego, “Police officers are overwhelmingly good people . . . who took exhausting,
dangerous jobs because they want to help people.”

No government agency is more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the
police. If the next administration continues to disregard that truth in favor of a false narrative
about systemic law-enforcement racism, the next four years will see more urban violence and
race riots, and more dead cops.