Marilyn Penn reminds us that a decade ago the Gray Lady, as The New York Times is called, refused to publish the Danish cartoons which mocked Muhammad for fear of reprisals by offended Muslims, but was quick to slam Sony for not releasing The Interview.
THE GRAY LADY POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK
By Marilyn Penn
politicalmavens.com
December 24, 2014
A decade ago, a Danish publication posted cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that roiled the Muslim world, resulting in death threats for the editor whose life was subsequently lived under constant security watch. Although this was international headline news, The New York Times refused to publish any of the cartoons, buckling in fear for the security of its own establishment. So of course it’s ironic and amusing that their editorials have been so self-righteous about the need to uphold our absolute freedom of speech in the wake of No Korea’s hacking of SONY and threats to theater owners of a 9/11 type of retribution for screening The Interview. The most sensible suggestion I have read is that the government pay SONY for the rights to the film and then air it free on television and over the internet. It seems patently unfair to call for greater courage from commercial theater owners than the Times was able to summon in its role as dispatcher of all the news that’s fit to print.
In considering the sequence of events, I’m troubled by the notion that private businesses, in this case theater owners, should be expected to pay the penalty for the foolishness of other for profit private ventures. Even if no act of terrorism resulted from the hackers’ threat, wouldn’t audiences stay away from that possibility and wouldn’t theater owners suffer a financial loss? And what would their liability have been if any act of violence had occurred? Would Seth Rogen’s movie have been any different with a fictitious name for an Asian dictator? Is any work of fiction justified in using the real name of a living head of state or public personality? At what point does freedom of speech clash with the right to live without being threatened? What would the reaction of American pundits have been to a satiric movie about President Obama being lynched? We live in a society where you cannot say or print the word nigger without euphemizing it with just its initial - does that represent freedom of speech? Is one word more inflammatory than a movie whose plot concerns a political assassination?
If the Times wishes to restore its bona fides in this area, let it now publish the Mohammed cartoons along with an apology to the American public for its dereliction of duty the first time around. And perhaps a mea culpa to SONY and the theater owners for the Times having made the same decision themselves ten years ago, before deciding to lambaste them for their behavior would be sheepishly appropriate.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
SHOES TO DIE FOR
Swift justice at the end of a gun barrel
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
December 23, 2014
A very interesting piece of social commentary occurred on Monday at the Dayton Mall in Miami Township (near Cincinnati).
Three teenagers, among about a zillion other people, went to the mall to buy whatever the hot athletic shoe of the day is. They got there too late and so didn’t get their shoes.
They then decided to just jack some other customer and steal the shoes. They approached two men outside the mall and demanded their merchandise. One of the young criminals, age 16, showed a gun. One of the men was a gun permit holder and pulled his own gun and started shooting. The armed teenager (it was a real gun by the way), Jawaad Jabbar, died of a single gunshot wound to the torso. His two buddies were arrested.
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
December 23, 2014
A very interesting piece of social commentary occurred on Monday at the Dayton Mall in Miami Township (near Cincinnati).
Three teenagers, among about a zillion other people, went to the mall to buy whatever the hot athletic shoe of the day is. They got there too late and so didn’t get their shoes.
They then decided to just jack some other customer and steal the shoes. They approached two men outside the mall and demanded their merchandise. One of the young criminals, age 16, showed a gun. One of the men was a gun permit holder and pulled his own gun and started shooting. The armed teenager (it was a real gun by the way), Jawaad Jabbar, died of a single gunshot wound to the torso. His two buddies were arrested.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
SHAME ON THE NEW YORK TIMES
The left-wing paper wants Dick Cheney and other members of the Bush administration prosecuted for conspiring to commit torture
On December 21, The New York Times editorial board published a call for Dick Cheney and other members of the Bush administration to be prosecuted for conspiring to commit torture. The editorial was published in response to the Senate’s partisan Democrat report on the CIA’s ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ which the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee insisted was torture.
Here are some excerpts from the Times editorial:
Americans have known about many of these acts for years, but the 524-page executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report erases any lingering doubt about their depravity and illegality: In addition to new revelations of sadistic tactics like “rectal feeding,” scores of detainees were waterboarded, hung by their wrists, confined in coffins, sleep-deprived, threatened with death or brutally beaten. In November 2002, one detainee who was chained to a concrete floor died of “suspected hypothermia.”
These are, simply, crimes. They are prohibited by federal law, which defines torture as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” They are also banned by the Convention Against Torture, the international treaty that the United States ratified in 1994 and that requires prosecution of any acts of torture.
[Those to be prosecuted] should include former Vice President Dick Cheney; Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington; the former C.I.A. director George Tenet; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Office of Legal Counsel lawyers who drafted what became known as the torture memos. There are many more names that could be considered, including Jose Rodriguez Jr., the C.I.A. official who ordered the destruction of the videotapes; the psychologists who devised the torture regimen; and the C.I.A. employees who carried out that regimen.
Apparently the Times does not give a shit that after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon which killed 3,000 Americans our government was concerned with the real possibility that there would be further terrorist attacks on our country. I’ll admit that some of those enhanced interrogation techniques amounted to torture, but so what?! As Newt Gingrich said, “The morning any president finds out that there's a dirty bomb in an American city and we have found the person who knows where that bomb is, we're going to do anything necessary to stop the death of thousands of Americans.”
Shame on The New York Times! The editors of that left-wing rag would rather see thousands of Americans die at the hands of terrorists than for us to use interrogation techniques that could uncover plots to attack targets within our nation.
I consider Cheney and the others singled out for prosecution in the editorial as patriots! The Times editors, on the other hand, are nothing more than traitors!
I commend President Obama and Attorney General Holder for their intention not to prosecute anyone involved in the CIA’s interrogation of terrorist suspects. I just hope they stick to their guns and not cave into the demands of the Times editorial, which by the way, severely criticized them for not prosecuting any of those involved in the interrogations and their bosses.
Many say that The New York Times is good only for lining the bottom of a bird cage to catch the droppings. After this editorial, bird droppings are way too good for the Times.
On December 21, The New York Times editorial board published a call for Dick Cheney and other members of the Bush administration to be prosecuted for conspiring to commit torture. The editorial was published in response to the Senate’s partisan Democrat report on the CIA’s ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ which the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee insisted was torture.
Here are some excerpts from the Times editorial:
Americans have known about many of these acts for years, but the 524-page executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report erases any lingering doubt about their depravity and illegality: In addition to new revelations of sadistic tactics like “rectal feeding,” scores of detainees were waterboarded, hung by their wrists, confined in coffins, sleep-deprived, threatened with death or brutally beaten. In November 2002, one detainee who was chained to a concrete floor died of “suspected hypothermia.”
These are, simply, crimes. They are prohibited by federal law, which defines torture as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” They are also banned by the Convention Against Torture, the international treaty that the United States ratified in 1994 and that requires prosecution of any acts of torture.
[Those to be prosecuted] should include former Vice President Dick Cheney; Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington; the former C.I.A. director George Tenet; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Office of Legal Counsel lawyers who drafted what became known as the torture memos. There are many more names that could be considered, including Jose Rodriguez Jr., the C.I.A. official who ordered the destruction of the videotapes; the psychologists who devised the torture regimen; and the C.I.A. employees who carried out that regimen.
Apparently the Times does not give a shit that after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon which killed 3,000 Americans our government was concerned with the real possibility that there would be further terrorist attacks on our country. I’ll admit that some of those enhanced interrogation techniques amounted to torture, but so what?! As Newt Gingrich said, “The morning any president finds out that there's a dirty bomb in an American city and we have found the person who knows where that bomb is, we're going to do anything necessary to stop the death of thousands of Americans.”
Shame on The New York Times! The editors of that left-wing rag would rather see thousands of Americans die at the hands of terrorists than for us to use interrogation techniques that could uncover plots to attack targets within our nation.
I consider Cheney and the others singled out for prosecution in the editorial as patriots! The Times editors, on the other hand, are nothing more than traitors!
I commend President Obama and Attorney General Holder for their intention not to prosecute anyone involved in the CIA’s interrogation of terrorist suspects. I just hope they stick to their guns and not cave into the demands of the Times editorial, which by the way, severely criticized them for not prosecuting any of those involved in the interrogations and their bosses.
Many say that The New York Times is good only for lining the bottom of a bird cage to catch the droppings. After this editorial, bird droppings are way too good for the Times.
DEAD, DEAD MICHAEL BROWN
Parody of Jim Croce’s Bad, Bad Leroy Brown sparks outrage
Some of you may remember the Jim Croce song Bad, Bad Leroy Brown. Now Gary Fishell, a singer, has written a parody – Dead, Dead Michael Brown – which he performed at the Elks lodge in Glendale, California before 30 retired and active cops during a private party thrown by retired LAPD officer Joe Myers.
Here are Fishell’s lyrics of Dead, Dead Michael Brown:
Michael Brown learned a lesson about a messin'
With a badass policeman
And he's bad, bad Michael Brown
Baddest thug in the whole damn town
Badder than old King Kong
Meaner than a junkyard dog
Two men took to fightin'
And Michael punched in through the door
And Michael looked like some old Swiss cheese
His brain was splattered on the floor
And he's dead, dead Michael Brown
Deadest man in the whole damn town
His whole life's long gone
Deader than a roadkill dog
One of the attendees became outraged that the other cops were laughing during the singing of the parody. He videotaped the performance and sent a copy to TMZ. Now that party has sparked a shitstorm of outrage and the Elks lodge is promising to punish Fishell and any of the cops who are members of the lodge.
I agree with those who say the song is in bad taste. But I disagree that the lyrics are racist, as many of those who are outraged now say. And who can blame the cops for laughing after they have been tarred and feathered over the death of an angelized thug (Brown) and the death of Eric Garner. As to why they laughed when the song is filled with gory descriptions … well that’s just part of the tombstone humor common among cops.
Look for a spooked LAPD to try and take some kind of disciplinary action against the active cops who attended that party.
UPDATE (12-24-14): Just as I predicted, Chief Charlie Beck has directed LAPD's Professional Standards Bureau to identify any active officers that attended the party. Beck said, "Like many of you, I find it offensive & absurd. It does not reflect the values of the LAPD."
And now the witch hunt begins. But, I'll bet that most street cops would admit that, although the song may have been tasteless, they found it to be very funny.
Some of you may remember the Jim Croce song Bad, Bad Leroy Brown. Now Gary Fishell, a singer, has written a parody – Dead, Dead Michael Brown – which he performed at the Elks lodge in Glendale, California before 30 retired and active cops during a private party thrown by retired LAPD officer Joe Myers.
Here are Fishell’s lyrics of Dead, Dead Michael Brown:
Michael Brown learned a lesson about a messin'
With a badass policeman
And he's bad, bad Michael Brown
Baddest thug in the whole damn town
Badder than old King Kong
Meaner than a junkyard dog
Two men took to fightin'
And Michael punched in through the door
And Michael looked like some old Swiss cheese
His brain was splattered on the floor
And he's dead, dead Michael Brown
Deadest man in the whole damn town
His whole life's long gone
Deader than a roadkill dog
One of the attendees became outraged that the other cops were laughing during the singing of the parody. He videotaped the performance and sent a copy to TMZ. Now that party has sparked a shitstorm of outrage and the Elks lodge is promising to punish Fishell and any of the cops who are members of the lodge.
I agree with those who say the song is in bad taste. But I disagree that the lyrics are racist, as many of those who are outraged now say. And who can blame the cops for laughing after they have been tarred and feathered over the death of an angelized thug (Brown) and the death of Eric Garner. As to why they laughed when the song is filled with gory descriptions … well that’s just part of the tombstone humor common among cops.
Look for a spooked LAPD to try and take some kind of disciplinary action against the active cops who attended that party.
UPDATE (12-24-14): Just as I predicted, Chief Charlie Beck has directed LAPD's Professional Standards Bureau to identify any active officers that attended the party. Beck said, "Like many of you, I find it offensive & absurd. It does not reflect the values of the LAPD."
And now the witch hunt begins. But, I'll bet that most street cops would admit that, although the song may have been tasteless, they found it to be very funny.
GREGORY KWIATKOWSKI: CANDIDATE FOR SORRIEST COP EVER
Former Buffalo cop not only beat up prisoners, but he also beat up his fellow officers
Gregory Kwiatkowski was one cop of a kind. He not only beat up black prisoners, but he also beat up his fellow cops. How this guy was ever hired as a cop in the first place is a deep mystery. Buffalo PD apparently tolerated this candidate for sorriest cop ever. They even fired 19-year veteran black officer Cariol Horne for trying to stop him from choking a black handcuffed prisoner.
FIRED COP SAYS SHE TRIED TO STOP ANOTHER FROM CHOKING SUSTPECT
WKBW
December 22, 2014
BUFFALO, New York - Former Buffalo Police Officer Cariol Horne is in a battle to get her pension after she was fired for trying to stop a fellow officer she says was abusing a suspect.
"November 1, 2006, there was a call of an officer in trouble at 707 Walden," Horne told WKBW reporters.
That officer was Gregory Kwiatkowski, who was responding to a domestic dispute inside that home between Neal Mack and his girlfriend. When Horne went into the house, Mack had already been placed under arrest, she said.
"He was handcuffed in the front and he was sideways and being punched in the face by Gregory Kwiatkowski," she said.
Horne and about 10 other officers who arrived at the scene helped drag Mack out of the home, but once outside, Horne says Officer Kwiatkowski was out of control.
"Gregory Kwiatkowski turned Neal Mack around and started choking him. So then I'm like, 'Greg! You're choking him,' because I thought whatever happened in the house he was still upset about so when he didn't stop choking him I just grabbed his arm from around Neal Mack's neck," Horne said.
If the choke hold of a handcuffed suspect caught Horne off guard, it didn't prepare her for what she said Kwiatkowski did next.
"He comes up and punches me in the face and I had to have my bridge replaced," Horne said.
When she tried to defend herself other officers pulled her back and her shoulder was injured.
Following the incident, Horne was fired and charged with obstruction for "jumping on officer Kwiatkowski's back and/or striking him with her hands."
Officer Kiwatkowski's words seem to conflict with the charges. In a sworn statement he said, "she never got on top of me."
Horne lost every appeal, and with her 19-year career over, she didn't qualify for a pension.
Horne is the mother of five children and is now working as a truck driver.
"My daughter said, 'Mommy, why did you go to work that day?' She never said, 'Why did you do what you did?' or 'I wish you wouldn't have done it.' She just said, 'I wish you wouldn't have gone to work that day.' So I don't regret it."
Officer Kwiatkowski was forced to retire from the police department after he was suspended for choking another officer on the job, and in a separate incident, punching another officer when he was off the clock.
In May 2014, Kwiatowkski and two other officers were indicted on federal civil rights violations against black teen suspects.
Horne is continuing to fight for a pension.
The City of Buffalo Common Council sent her case to the New York State retirement system for review. A determination has not yet been made.
Gregory Kwiatkowski was one cop of a kind. He not only beat up black prisoners, but he also beat up his fellow cops. How this guy was ever hired as a cop in the first place is a deep mystery. Buffalo PD apparently tolerated this candidate for sorriest cop ever. They even fired 19-year veteran black officer Cariol Horne for trying to stop him from choking a black handcuffed prisoner.
FIRED COP SAYS SHE TRIED TO STOP ANOTHER FROM CHOKING SUSTPECT
WKBW
December 22, 2014
BUFFALO, New York - Former Buffalo Police Officer Cariol Horne is in a battle to get her pension after she was fired for trying to stop a fellow officer she says was abusing a suspect.
"November 1, 2006, there was a call of an officer in trouble at 707 Walden," Horne told WKBW reporters.
That officer was Gregory Kwiatkowski, who was responding to a domestic dispute inside that home between Neal Mack and his girlfriend. When Horne went into the house, Mack had already been placed under arrest, she said.
"He was handcuffed in the front and he was sideways and being punched in the face by Gregory Kwiatkowski," she said.
Horne and about 10 other officers who arrived at the scene helped drag Mack out of the home, but once outside, Horne says Officer Kwiatkowski was out of control.
"Gregory Kwiatkowski turned Neal Mack around and started choking him. So then I'm like, 'Greg! You're choking him,' because I thought whatever happened in the house he was still upset about so when he didn't stop choking him I just grabbed his arm from around Neal Mack's neck," Horne said.
If the choke hold of a handcuffed suspect caught Horne off guard, it didn't prepare her for what she said Kwiatkowski did next.
"He comes up and punches me in the face and I had to have my bridge replaced," Horne said.
When she tried to defend herself other officers pulled her back and her shoulder was injured.
Following the incident, Horne was fired and charged with obstruction for "jumping on officer Kwiatkowski's back and/or striking him with her hands."
Officer Kiwatkowski's words seem to conflict with the charges. In a sworn statement he said, "she never got on top of me."
Horne lost every appeal, and with her 19-year career over, she didn't qualify for a pension.
Horne is the mother of five children and is now working as a truck driver.
"My daughter said, 'Mommy, why did you go to work that day?' She never said, 'Why did you do what you did?' or 'I wish you wouldn't have done it.' She just said, 'I wish you wouldn't have gone to work that day.' So I don't regret it."
Officer Kwiatkowski was forced to retire from the police department after he was suspended for choking another officer on the job, and in a separate incident, punching another officer when he was off the clock.
In May 2014, Kwiatowkski and two other officers were indicted on federal civil rights violations against black teen suspects.
Horne is continuing to fight for a pension.
The City of Buffalo Common Council sent her case to the New York State retirement system for review. A determination has not yet been made.
DUDE BUSTED IN U.S. FOR HAVING SEX WITH TEENAGER IN HONDURAS
The feds have charged William McGrath, 54, for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in Honduras after she told him she was 16
The former army contractor had sex with a 13-year-ol girl in Honduras. She has admitted she told him that she was 16. In many foreign countries, especially in Asia, there are no laws against an adult having sex with a child. While I certainly do not approve of what William McGrath did, I do not believe the feds should have arrested and charged him with engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places, that is if Honduras has no laws prohibiting adults from having sex with children.
MAN SAYS HE SHOULDN’T BE CHARGED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR HAVING SEX WITH A TEENAGER IN HONDURAS
By Angelica Leicht
Houston Press
December 23, 2014
Apparently a grown man having sex with a 13-year-old girl -- obviously illegal under U.S. law -- should not be considered a crime here, in the United States, if said sexual activity happened overseas.
That's according to one Texas man, anyway, who's fighting federal charges of illicit sexual conduct based on just that reasoning.
In late October, federal prosecutors in Houston charged 54-year-old William McGrath, a former army contractor, with the crime of engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places for an alleged sexual relationship he had with a 13-year-old girl while working at an Army base in Honduras.
McGrath is now asking a judge in Houston to dismiss his indictment, but not because said relationship is untrue. Instead, McGrath's attorney has argued that the U.S. government does not have the authority to prosecute him for matters that took place in Honduras, according to court filings.
Investigators stumbled upon McGrath's alleged skeeviness in March 2014 while they were completing "an unrelated investigation concerning a foreign counterintelligence matter regarding another individual employed at the Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras."
During that investigation, McGrath's coworkers told the FBI special agents that they believed he was exploiting young Honduran girls, according to court records, and that some coworkers had even seen McGrath outside of the base with a very young girl on multiple occasions.
According to the court documents, McGrath was working at the Soto Cano Air Base in Comayagua, Honduras in December 2012, when he met the young girl at a supermarket, where she was buying herself a cake for her 13th birthday.
McGrath claims the girl told him she was 16 years old at the time -- a fact that the young girl corroborates -- but the dude went after her anyway, getting her phone number and taking her on "dates" to various hotels in the area, where they would have sex, according to court documents.
Prosecutors also claim McGrath gave the girl cash and gifts, and took her to restaurants like Pizza Hut and Pollo Campero; McGrath denies paying the girl for sex. The young girl, however, says McGrath gave her money each time they had sex, in both U.S. and Honduran currency.
During their investigation, the FBI agents found evidence in the messages and chats between the two on the young girl's Facebook account. In one of those messages, McGrath wrote, "You're too young to be with me in public," and "I'm not mad at you, I am upset about the rules and you are only 16 years old."
Investigators say McGrath also had conversations with an adult female on Facebook about the young girl, writing things like, "She's in love with me, that is part of the problem with the law," and, "It was an error on my part a while ago, but I'm in trouble because of her, it's my fault."
McGrath, who continued to work in Honduras during the investigation, was ultimately deemed unwelcome to work in the Central American country and returned to the U.S. in March of this year, where he was questioned by FBI investigators and later released, according to court documents filed by his attorney.
He was arrested in San Antonio almost seven months later, on October 22, 2014.
McGrath's attorney, public defender Marjorie Meyers, is now helping him fight the charges, saying said the allegations in a November indictment are outside the scope of U.S. law because the activities didn't occur on U.S. soil.
"Prosecution of Mr. McGrath for sexual activity in Honduras is akin to prosecuting an American citizen who smokes hashish in Amsterdam, an activity that is legal in the Netherlands," Meyers wrote in a motion filed last week.
"His sexual activity in Honduras has no relationship with commerce, much less foreign commerce, and may have been legal where it occurred," she states.
A judge has not yet ruled on McGrath's motion to dismiss, and he has been ordered to remain in custody.
The former army contractor had sex with a 13-year-ol girl in Honduras. She has admitted she told him that she was 16. In many foreign countries, especially in Asia, there are no laws against an adult having sex with a child. While I certainly do not approve of what William McGrath did, I do not believe the feds should have arrested and charged him with engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places, that is if Honduras has no laws prohibiting adults from having sex with children.
MAN SAYS HE SHOULDN’T BE CHARGED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR HAVING SEX WITH A TEENAGER IN HONDURAS
By Angelica Leicht
Houston Press
December 23, 2014
Apparently a grown man having sex with a 13-year-old girl -- obviously illegal under U.S. law -- should not be considered a crime here, in the United States, if said sexual activity happened overseas.
That's according to one Texas man, anyway, who's fighting federal charges of illicit sexual conduct based on just that reasoning.
In late October, federal prosecutors in Houston charged 54-year-old William McGrath, a former army contractor, with the crime of engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places for an alleged sexual relationship he had with a 13-year-old girl while working at an Army base in Honduras.
McGrath is now asking a judge in Houston to dismiss his indictment, but not because said relationship is untrue. Instead, McGrath's attorney has argued that the U.S. government does not have the authority to prosecute him for matters that took place in Honduras, according to court filings.
Investigators stumbled upon McGrath's alleged skeeviness in March 2014 while they were completing "an unrelated investigation concerning a foreign counterintelligence matter regarding another individual employed at the Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras."
During that investigation, McGrath's coworkers told the FBI special agents that they believed he was exploiting young Honduran girls, according to court records, and that some coworkers had even seen McGrath outside of the base with a very young girl on multiple occasions.
According to the court documents, McGrath was working at the Soto Cano Air Base in Comayagua, Honduras in December 2012, when he met the young girl at a supermarket, where she was buying herself a cake for her 13th birthday.
McGrath claims the girl told him she was 16 years old at the time -- a fact that the young girl corroborates -- but the dude went after her anyway, getting her phone number and taking her on "dates" to various hotels in the area, where they would have sex, according to court documents.
Prosecutors also claim McGrath gave the girl cash and gifts, and took her to restaurants like Pizza Hut and Pollo Campero; McGrath denies paying the girl for sex. The young girl, however, says McGrath gave her money each time they had sex, in both U.S. and Honduran currency.
During their investigation, the FBI agents found evidence in the messages and chats between the two on the young girl's Facebook account. In one of those messages, McGrath wrote, "You're too young to be with me in public," and "I'm not mad at you, I am upset about the rules and you are only 16 years old."
Investigators say McGrath also had conversations with an adult female on Facebook about the young girl, writing things like, "She's in love with me, that is part of the problem with the law," and, "It was an error on my part a while ago, but I'm in trouble because of her, it's my fault."
McGrath, who continued to work in Honduras during the investigation, was ultimately deemed unwelcome to work in the Central American country and returned to the U.S. in March of this year, where he was questioned by FBI investigators and later released, according to court documents filed by his attorney.
He was arrested in San Antonio almost seven months later, on October 22, 2014.
McGrath's attorney, public defender Marjorie Meyers, is now helping him fight the charges, saying said the allegations in a November indictment are outside the scope of U.S. law because the activities didn't occur on U.S. soil.
"Prosecution of Mr. McGrath for sexual activity in Honduras is akin to prosecuting an American citizen who smokes hashish in Amsterdam, an activity that is legal in the Netherlands," Meyers wrote in a motion filed last week.
"His sexual activity in Honduras has no relationship with commerce, much less foreign commerce, and may have been legal where it occurred," she states.
A judge has not yet ruled on McGrath's motion to dismiss, and he has been ordered to remain in custody.
WHY I DID NOT GET INTO MEDICAL SCHOOL
The Unconventional Gazette
December 23, 2014
When I was young, I thought I wanted to go to Medical School.
At the entrance exam, we were asked to rearrange the letters PSIEN and form
the name of an important human body part which is most useful when erect.
Those who answered ‘spine’ are doctors today, while the rest of us who answered ‘penis’ are sending jokes over the internet.
December 23, 2014
When I was young, I thought I wanted to go to Medical School.
At the entrance exam, we were asked to rearrange the letters PSIEN and form
the name of an important human body part which is most useful when erect.
Those who answered ‘spine’ are doctors today, while the rest of us who answered ‘penis’ are sending jokes over the internet.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
AL SHARPTON THE ‘RACE PINMP’ AND ‘DISGUSTING PIG’
Actor James Woods blames Shapton, Mayor de Blasio and President Obama for the ambush slaying of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu
James Woods has been one of my favorite actors ever since he starred in The Onion Field, the 1979 movie based on Joseph Wambaugh’s book about the 1963 kidnapping of LAPD officers Ian Campbell and Karl Hettinger by two parolees and the subsequent killing of Campbell.
James has acted in a variety of roles from good guy to villain, and he has received two Academy Award nominations. Although a registered Democrat, Woods is a rare Hollywood commodity in that he is a staunch conservative a la Charlton Heston, John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. In reaction to the ambush slaying of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, Woods slammed Al Sharpton, Mayor Bill de Blasio and President Obama, blaming them for the deaths of the two cops.
Sharpton was especially singled out. Woods called the racial rabble rouser a “Race Pimp” and a “Disgusting Pig”. Here are some of the tweets he posted Sunday:
“This disgusting pig is DIRECTLY responsible for the murder of two good policemen. No discussion.” (Accompanied by a picture of Sharpton)
“’I’m putting wings on pigs today’ – Cop assassin Ismaaiyl Brimsley. Is Race Pimp Sharpton eating caviar this morning?”
“Mission accomplished:” (Accompanied by a picture of Obama with his left hand on Sharpton’s right shoulder, both grinning)
“#Blue Lives Matter #Turn Your Back (Supporting cops for turning their backs on de Blasio) #De Blasio Resign #Race Hucksters #Pig Sharpton”
I don’t know whether Woods was drunk or sober when he posted those tweets, but in either case James is spot on! And he's got Sharpton pegged exactly for what he is. But now he will never be nominated for another award and he’ll be lucky if he is ever offered another acting part again.
James Woods has been one of my favorite actors ever since he starred in The Onion Field, the 1979 movie based on Joseph Wambaugh’s book about the 1963 kidnapping of LAPD officers Ian Campbell and Karl Hettinger by two parolees and the subsequent killing of Campbell.
James has acted in a variety of roles from good guy to villain, and he has received two Academy Award nominations. Although a registered Democrat, Woods is a rare Hollywood commodity in that he is a staunch conservative a la Charlton Heston, John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. In reaction to the ambush slaying of NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, Woods slammed Al Sharpton, Mayor Bill de Blasio and President Obama, blaming them for the deaths of the two cops.
Sharpton was especially singled out. Woods called the racial rabble rouser a “Race Pimp” and a “Disgusting Pig”. Here are some of the tweets he posted Sunday:
“This disgusting pig is DIRECTLY responsible for the murder of two good policemen. No discussion.” (Accompanied by a picture of Sharpton)
“’I’m putting wings on pigs today’ – Cop assassin Ismaaiyl Brimsley. Is Race Pimp Sharpton eating caviar this morning?”
“Mission accomplished:” (Accompanied by a picture of Obama with his left hand on Sharpton’s right shoulder, both grinning)
“#Blue Lives Matter #Turn Your Back (Supporting cops for turning their backs on de Blasio) #De Blasio Resign #Race Hucksters #Pig Sharpton”
I don’t know whether Woods was drunk or sober when he posted those tweets, but in either case James is spot on! And he's got Sharpton pegged exactly for what he is. But now he will never be nominated for another award and he’ll be lucky if he is ever offered another acting part again.
RAVAGES OF GLOBAL WARMING AKA CLIMATE CHANGE
Secretary of State John Kerry blames tsunami and typhoon disasters on climate change
On the 10 th anniversary of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that devastated parts of the Asian and African coasts, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke about the tsunami and deadly Typhoon Haiyan which struck parts of the Philippines last year:
"It [the tsunami] sounded a warning. We know that many regions are already suffering historic floods and rising sea levels. And scientists have been saying for years that climate change could mean more frequent and disastrous storms, unless we stop and reverse course. Last year I visited the Philippines and saw the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan. It is incomprehensible that that kind of storm — or worse — could become the norm. The time to act on climate change is now — before it’s too late to heed the warning.”
Here is my list of some other disasters that can only be explained as resulting from global warming - or climate change, as Kerry now calls it:
The birth of Al Gore
The appointment of John Kerry as Secretary of State
The election of Barack Obama
The reelection of Barack Obama
Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary
The great divide among the Republicans
The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370
The shooting of Trayvon Martin
The birth of George Zimmerman
The shooting of Michael Brown
The death of Eric Garner
Grand jury fails to indict Darren Wilson
Grand jury fails to indict Daniel Pantaleo
The birth of Jesse Jackson
The birth of Al Sharpton
The election of Bill de Blasio
Gov. Rick Perry’s memory loss
The botched execution of Clayton Lockett
The recession
I can think of dozens more disasters that have obviously been caused by global warming, but by now you should realize that we’ve got to take drastic action to reverse this phenomenal climate change.
On the 10 th anniversary of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that devastated parts of the Asian and African coasts, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke about the tsunami and deadly Typhoon Haiyan which struck parts of the Philippines last year:
"It [the tsunami] sounded a warning. We know that many regions are already suffering historic floods and rising sea levels. And scientists have been saying for years that climate change could mean more frequent and disastrous storms, unless we stop and reverse course. Last year I visited the Philippines and saw the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan. It is incomprehensible that that kind of storm — or worse — could become the norm. The time to act on climate change is now — before it’s too late to heed the warning.”
Here is my list of some other disasters that can only be explained as resulting from global warming - or climate change, as Kerry now calls it:
The birth of Al Gore
The appointment of John Kerry as Secretary of State
The election of Barack Obama
The reelection of Barack Obama
Bill Clinton cheating on Hillary
The great divide among the Republicans
The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370
The shooting of Trayvon Martin
The birth of George Zimmerman
The shooting of Michael Brown
The death of Eric Garner
Grand jury fails to indict Darren Wilson
Grand jury fails to indict Daniel Pantaleo
The birth of Jesse Jackson
The birth of Al Sharpton
The election of Bill de Blasio
Gov. Rick Perry’s memory loss
The botched execution of Clayton Lockett
The recession
I can think of dozens more disasters that have obviously been caused by global warming, but by now you should realize that we’ve got to take drastic action to reverse this phenomenal climate change.
FIRE INVESTIGATOR EXPERIENCES CONSEQUENCES OF FREE SPEEDH
Crystal Eschert, an investigator with the fire department of Charlotte, North Carolina, was fired after posting a racially insensitive comment on her Facebook page
Where is Obama? Where is Holder? Where is Al Sharpton? Where are Trayvon Martin's parents? Where are all the white guy supporters? So WHY is everyone MAKING it a racial issue?!? So tired of hearing it’s a racial thing. If you are a thug and worthless to society, it’s not race – You’re just a waste no matter what religion, race or sex you are!
So wrote Crystal Eschert, at the time an investigator with the fire department of Charlotte, North Carolina, on her personal Facebook page. Crystal was upset that the shooting of a white cop by a black man near Ferguson did not receive the same amount of attention as the shooting of Michael Brown. Crystal did not identify herself as a member of the fire department.
Someone forwarded Crystal’s post to City Hall and, in September, City Manager Ron Carlee fired her ass. Carlee said the post was racially insensitive, discriminatory and inflammatory, and that city employees were expected to treat all people with dignity and respect.
Crystal, who was commended for the quality of her work on a recent performance evaluation, doesn’t believe she was fired for the comment she made. She thinks the real reason she was fired is because she had declared a city building to be unsafe.
Legal experts believe Crystal will have a good free speech case in a federal court. A police officer can be fired for making such a comment on social media because, having the power to arrest, it could create problems as he attempts to carry out his official duties. That is not the case with fire department employees.
The moral of this story is that (1) if you value your job be very careful how you use social media, and (2) exercising your right of free speech can have some unexpected and undesirable consequences.
Where is Obama? Where is Holder? Where is Al Sharpton? Where are Trayvon Martin's parents? Where are all the white guy supporters? So WHY is everyone MAKING it a racial issue?!? So tired of hearing it’s a racial thing. If you are a thug and worthless to society, it’s not race – You’re just a waste no matter what religion, race or sex you are!
So wrote Crystal Eschert, at the time an investigator with the fire department of Charlotte, North Carolina, on her personal Facebook page. Crystal was upset that the shooting of a white cop by a black man near Ferguson did not receive the same amount of attention as the shooting of Michael Brown. Crystal did not identify herself as a member of the fire department.
Someone forwarded Crystal’s post to City Hall and, in September, City Manager Ron Carlee fired her ass. Carlee said the post was racially insensitive, discriminatory and inflammatory, and that city employees were expected to treat all people with dignity and respect.
Crystal, who was commended for the quality of her work on a recent performance evaluation, doesn’t believe she was fired for the comment she made. She thinks the real reason she was fired is because she had declared a city building to be unsafe.
Legal experts believe Crystal will have a good free speech case in a federal court. A police officer can be fired for making such a comment on social media because, having the power to arrest, it could create problems as he attempts to carry out his official duties. That is not the case with fire department employees.
The moral of this story is that (1) if you value your job be very careful how you use social media, and (2) exercising your right of free speech can have some unexpected and undesirable consequences.
HOLIDAY WARNING: DON’T DRINK AND DRIVE
The Unconventional Gazette
December 22, 2014
With the Holidays upon us I would like to share a personal experience with my friends about drinking and driving.
As you may know some of us have been known to have brushes with the authorities from time to time on the way home after a "social session" out with friends.
Well, two days ago I was out for an evening with friends and had several cocktails followed by some rather nice red wine. Feeling jolly I still had the sense to know that I may be slightly over the limit. ... That's when I did something that I've never done before - I took a cab home.
Sure enough on the way home there was a police road block, but since it was a cab they waved it past. I arrived home safely without incident.
This was a real surprise as I had never driven a cab before, I don't know where I got it and now that it's in my garage I don't know what to do with it.
December 22, 2014
With the Holidays upon us I would like to share a personal experience with my friends about drinking and driving.
As you may know some of us have been known to have brushes with the authorities from time to time on the way home after a "social session" out with friends.
Well, two days ago I was out for an evening with friends and had several cocktails followed by some rather nice red wine. Feeling jolly I still had the sense to know that I may be slightly over the limit. ... That's when I did something that I've never done before - I took a cab home.
Sure enough on the way home there was a police road block, but since it was a cab they waved it past. I arrived home safely without incident.
This was a real surprise as I had never driven a cab before, I don't know where I got it and now that it's in my garage I don't know what to do with it.
Monday, December 22, 2014
NY COPS TURN THEIR BACKS TO MAYOR DE B LASIO
When the New York mayor arrived at Woodhull Hospital where the two dying officers had been taken, the hallway was filled with cops, all turning their backs to de Blasio
New York cops feel that their mayor threw them under the bus when, during a press conference in wake of Eric Garner’s death, he blurted out that he and his wife had warned their son Dante to be fearful of white cops.
After officers Rafael Ramos, 40, and Wenjian Liu, 32, were ambushed and shot Saturday by 28-year-old Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, they were taken to Brooklyn’s Woodhull Hospital where they were eventually pronounced dead. Dozens of cops filled the hospital hallways out of concern for their mortally wounded comrades. When Mayor de Blasio showed up, all the officers turned their backs to him in silent protest of his anti-police rhetoric.
The following statements were made in response to the deaths of the two officers:
“Mayor de Blasio, the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands. It is your failed policies and actions that enabled this tragedy to occur. I only hope and pray that more of these ambushes and executions do not happen again.” - Ed Mullins, President of the Sergeants Benevolent Association
“That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall in the office of the mayor. When these funerals are over, those responsible will be called on the carpet and held accountable. [The blame also goes to] those who incited violence on the street under the guise of protest that tried to tear down what NYC police officers did every day.” - Patrick Lynch, head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association
Pat Lunch had previously demanded that de Blasio be barred from attending the funerals of any officers that may be killed in the line of duty. De Blasio’s lap dog Police Commissioner William Bratton rejected that demand.
"Sickened by these barbaric acts, which sadly are a predictable outcome of divisive anti-cop rhetoric of Eric Holder and Mayor de Blasio.” - George Pataki, former governor of New York, on Twitter
"I think when the mayor made statements about that he had to train his son — who is biracial — to be careful when he's dealing with the police, I think that set off this latest firestorm. And, quite frankly, the mayor ran an antipolice campaign last year when he ran for mayor." - Ray Kelly, former NYC police commissioner
By early Sunday morning, more than 34,000 New Yorkers had signed a petition circulated by MoveOn.org which demanded the ouster of de Blasio. Surprise, surprise! MoveOn.org is an ultra left-wing group that was formed to defeat George W. Bush and has supported only Democratic candidates, including de Blasio. The group has been financed largely by George Soros.
The NYPD rank and file has good reason to hate their mayor, but the brass, ever mindful of their careers, will not back their cops against de Blasio.
New York cops feel that their mayor threw them under the bus when, during a press conference in wake of Eric Garner’s death, he blurted out that he and his wife had warned their son Dante to be fearful of white cops.
After officers Rafael Ramos, 40, and Wenjian Liu, 32, were ambushed and shot Saturday by 28-year-old Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, they were taken to Brooklyn’s Woodhull Hospital where they were eventually pronounced dead. Dozens of cops filled the hospital hallways out of concern for their mortally wounded comrades. When Mayor de Blasio showed up, all the officers turned their backs to him in silent protest of his anti-police rhetoric.
The following statements were made in response to the deaths of the two officers:
“Mayor de Blasio, the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands. It is your failed policies and actions that enabled this tragedy to occur. I only hope and pray that more of these ambushes and executions do not happen again.” - Ed Mullins, President of the Sergeants Benevolent Association
“That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall in the office of the mayor. When these funerals are over, those responsible will be called on the carpet and held accountable. [The blame also goes to] those who incited violence on the street under the guise of protest that tried to tear down what NYC police officers did every day.” - Patrick Lynch, head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association
Pat Lunch had previously demanded that de Blasio be barred from attending the funerals of any officers that may be killed in the line of duty. De Blasio’s lap dog Police Commissioner William Bratton rejected that demand.
"Sickened by these barbaric acts, which sadly are a predictable outcome of divisive anti-cop rhetoric of Eric Holder and Mayor de Blasio.” - George Pataki, former governor of New York, on Twitter
"I think when the mayor made statements about that he had to train his son — who is biracial — to be careful when he's dealing with the police, I think that set off this latest firestorm. And, quite frankly, the mayor ran an antipolice campaign last year when he ran for mayor." - Ray Kelly, former NYC police commissioner
By early Sunday morning, more than 34,000 New Yorkers had signed a petition circulated by MoveOn.org which demanded the ouster of de Blasio. Surprise, surprise! MoveOn.org is an ultra left-wing group that was formed to defeat George W. Bush and has supported only Democratic candidates, including de Blasio. The group has been financed largely by George Soros.
The NYPD rank and file has good reason to hate their mayor, but the brass, ever mindful of their careers, will not back their cops against de Blasio.
LAWLESS PROTESTERS NOW RULE THE DAY WITH IMPUNITY
1,500 police brutality protesters overran the Mall of America, preventing people from shopping and forcing some stores to close down, but only 25 were arrested
An estimated 1,500 protesters Saturday overran the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota. They prevented people from shopping and forced some stores to close down.
The protest was organized by Black Lives Matter Minneapolis, a group that is part of those protesting the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, and the failure of grand juries in Ferguson and New York to indict any cops for murder.
Many of the protesters shouted “While you’re on your shopping spree, black people cannot breathe.” Others shouted “Hands up, don’t shoot.”
While the protesters were peaceful, they were breaking the law by trespassing on private property and by preventing people from going to where they wanted to go.
It has come down to this. Very few arrests are made, even when some of the protesters break store windows, loot businesses and set buildings and cars on fire. And at the Mall of America, the Bloomington cops saw fit to arrest only 25 law breakers from among 1,500 unlawful protesters.
It’s a sad time in America now that lawless protesters rule the day with impunity.
An estimated 1,500 protesters Saturday overran the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota. They prevented people from shopping and forced some stores to close down.
The protest was organized by Black Lives Matter Minneapolis, a group that is part of those protesting the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, and the failure of grand juries in Ferguson and New York to indict any cops for murder.
Many of the protesters shouted “While you’re on your shopping spree, black people cannot breathe.” Others shouted “Hands up, don’t shoot.”
While the protesters were peaceful, they were breaking the law by trespassing on private property and by preventing people from going to where they wanted to go.
It has come down to this. Very few arrests are made, even when some of the protesters break store windows, loot businesses and set buildings and cars on fire. And at the Mall of America, the Bloomington cops saw fit to arrest only 25 law breakers from among 1,500 unlawful protesters.
It’s a sad time in America now that lawless protesters rule the day with impunity.
DEATH PENALTY: JORDAN OUTDOES TEXAS
After an 8-year moratorium on the death penalty, Jordan hangs 11 murderers
The Kingdom of Jordan instituted a moratorium on the death penalty in 2006. That moratorium has now been lifted much to the consternation of human rights groups.
Sunday at dawn, 11 Jordanians were hanged at a prison 46 miles from the capital Amman. They were mostly in their 40s and had been convicted of murder in 2005 and 2006.
Apparently, in Jordan there are no contentious challenges to the manufacture of rope like there are to the manufacture of lethal drugs in the U.S.
122 people have been sentenced to death in Jordan since the imposition of the moratorium.
Oraib Rantawi, head of Amman's Al-Quds Centre for Political Studies, says, "The authorities have been confronted in recent years with a wave of violence, criminality and murders and want to meet the challenge by opting for deterrence and the renewed application of the death penalty.”
Hussein Majali. Jordan’s Interior Minister, says, "The public believes that the rise in crime has been the result of the non-application" of the death penalty.
Holy shit, eleven men hanged in one day. And I’ve always thought we did things bigger and better in Texas.
The Kingdom of Jordan instituted a moratorium on the death penalty in 2006. That moratorium has now been lifted much to the consternation of human rights groups.
Sunday at dawn, 11 Jordanians were hanged at a prison 46 miles from the capital Amman. They were mostly in their 40s and had been convicted of murder in 2005 and 2006.
Apparently, in Jordan there are no contentious challenges to the manufacture of rope like there are to the manufacture of lethal drugs in the U.S.
122 people have been sentenced to death in Jordan since the imposition of the moratorium.
Oraib Rantawi, head of Amman's Al-Quds Centre for Political Studies, says, "The authorities have been confronted in recent years with a wave of violence, criminality and murders and want to meet the challenge by opting for deterrence and the renewed application of the death penalty.”
Hussein Majali. Jordan’s Interior Minister, says, "The public believes that the rise in crime has been the result of the non-application" of the death penalty.
Holy shit, eleven men hanged in one day. And I’ve always thought we did things bigger and better in Texas.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
HOW WILL OBAMA AND SHARPTON REACT?
Two NYPD cops were ambushed and shot by a black man in Brooklyn Saturday afternoon
Two NYPD cops were parked in their patrol car outside a housing project in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn. About 3 p.m. Saturday, a black man emerged from the project, sneaked up behind the patrol car and shot both officers.
The cops were taken to a hospital. A police official said that one of the two was in very bad condition with a gunshot to the head. That cop is now dead. The second officer also died.
Other cops pursued the shooter to a subway station where it was reported that they shot the piece of shit. However, the cops say he shot himself. He was seen being carted into an ambulance with paramedics performing CPR. He is also now dead.
Hey, Mr. President, you were quick to comment on the shooting of Michael Brown and the death of Eric Garner. What about this ambush of cops? Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot you are on vacation in Hawaii.
And I’ll shit in my pants if Al Sharpton steps forth to lead any protests against the killing of cops by his ‘bros’. Come on Al, instead of your ‘No Justice, No Peace’ slogan, how about No Cops, No Peace?
I am sure the ambush is the result of all the hatred of cops that has been stirred up by Sharpton and the protesters. They are just as much responsible for the deaths of these cops as was the shooter.
UPDATE: The shooter has been identified as 28-year-old Ismaaiyl Brinsley, a resident of Atlanta. He had been in Baltimore to see his ex-girlfriend. Baltimore police report he shot and seriously wounded the woman before leaving for New York where he intended to kill some cops in retribution for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. His girlfriend’s mother called NYPD to warn them of Brinsley’s intent.
Brinsley had posted the following message on Instagram: “I’m Putting Wings On Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours...Let’s Take 2 of Theirs."
Two NYPD cops were parked in their patrol car outside a housing project in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn. About 3 p.m. Saturday, a black man emerged from the project, sneaked up behind the patrol car and shot both officers.
The cops were taken to a hospital. A police official said that one of the two was in very bad condition with a gunshot to the head. That cop is now dead. The second officer also died.
Other cops pursued the shooter to a subway station where it was reported that they shot the piece of shit. However, the cops say he shot himself. He was seen being carted into an ambulance with paramedics performing CPR. He is also now dead.
Hey, Mr. President, you were quick to comment on the shooting of Michael Brown and the death of Eric Garner. What about this ambush of cops? Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot you are on vacation in Hawaii.
And I’ll shit in my pants if Al Sharpton steps forth to lead any protests against the killing of cops by his ‘bros’. Come on Al, instead of your ‘No Justice, No Peace’ slogan, how about No Cops, No Peace?
I am sure the ambush is the result of all the hatred of cops that has been stirred up by Sharpton and the protesters. They are just as much responsible for the deaths of these cops as was the shooter.
UPDATE: The shooter has been identified as 28-year-old Ismaaiyl Brinsley, a resident of Atlanta. He had been in Baltimore to see his ex-girlfriend. Baltimore police report he shot and seriously wounded the woman before leaving for New York where he intended to kill some cops in retribution for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. His girlfriend’s mother called NYPD to warn them of Brinsley’s intent.
Brinsley had posted the following message on Instagram: “I’m Putting Wings On Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours...Let’s Take 2 of Theirs."
THE INTERVIEW: SONY SLAMMED FOR THE WRONG REASON
No nation on this earth would tolerate a movie in which its head of government is fictionally assassinated
Sony is being slammed by Hollywood actors and Washington politicians for not releasing The Interview, the farcical ‘comedy’ about the assassination of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un by two journalists recruited by the CIA.
President Obama also got in the act during his year-end press conference on Friday. Here is what Obama said:
“I think they made a mistake. I wish they’d spoken to me first. I would have told them: Do not get into the pattern in which you are intimidated. We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States. Imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary they don't like, or news reports they don't like -- or even worse imagine if producers and distributors and others started engaging in self-censorship because they don't want to offend the sensitivities of somebody whose sensitivities ought to be offended. That's not America. That's not who we are."
Great statement, Mr. President. You are right to condemn North Korea’s cyberattack, but you’re slamming Sony for the wrong reason. This is a movie that should never have been made. Granted that Kim Jong Un is a despicable despot and an enemy of the U.S., but making a motion picture in which his head is exploded at the end is way out of line.
Hollywood picked on the dictator of a small country in the belief that he would not be able to do anything about it. Would they have made a comedy in which any of the following leaders had their heads blown off?:
Queen Elizabeth of England
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany
President François Hollande of France
President Vladimir Putin of Russia
President Xi Jinping of China
President Pranab Mukherjee of India
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei of Iran
President Joko Widodo of Indonesia
President Mamnoon Hussain of Pakistan
Of course not! Had they made such a comedy about King Abdullah, Ali Khamenei or the presidents of Indonesia and Pakistan, the Muslim world would have erupted in bloody riots with attacks on Americans and U. S. embassies.
And Hollywood would never dare to make a comedy in which President Obama’s head explodes at the end. You can’t make that kind of fun of America’s first black president. That would obviously be racist.
When Obama said, “they don't want to offend the sensitivities of somebody whose sensitivities ought to be offended,” he was actually praising the producers of The Interview for offending Kim Jong Un. Mr. President, there are a lot of people in this country who, rightly or wrongly, would like to offend your sensitivities. So, would you approve of a film in which your head is blown off at the end? Hmm, I didn’t think so.
Now, if this crappy comedy is ever released, it will be a blockbuster hit at the box office, what with all the free publicity it is getting.
Sony is being slammed by Hollywood actors and Washington politicians for not releasing The Interview, the farcical ‘comedy’ about the assassination of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un by two journalists recruited by the CIA.
President Obama also got in the act during his year-end press conference on Friday. Here is what Obama said:
“I think they made a mistake. I wish they’d spoken to me first. I would have told them: Do not get into the pattern in which you are intimidated. We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States. Imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary they don't like, or news reports they don't like -- or even worse imagine if producers and distributors and others started engaging in self-censorship because they don't want to offend the sensitivities of somebody whose sensitivities ought to be offended. That's not America. That's not who we are."
Great statement, Mr. President. You are right to condemn North Korea’s cyberattack, but you’re slamming Sony for the wrong reason. This is a movie that should never have been made. Granted that Kim Jong Un is a despicable despot and an enemy of the U.S., but making a motion picture in which his head is exploded at the end is way out of line.
Hollywood picked on the dictator of a small country in the belief that he would not be able to do anything about it. Would they have made a comedy in which any of the following leaders had their heads blown off?:
Queen Elizabeth of England
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany
President François Hollande of France
President Vladimir Putin of Russia
President Xi Jinping of China
President Pranab Mukherjee of India
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei of Iran
President Joko Widodo of Indonesia
President Mamnoon Hussain of Pakistan
Of course not! Had they made such a comedy about King Abdullah, Ali Khamenei or the presidents of Indonesia and Pakistan, the Muslim world would have erupted in bloody riots with attacks on Americans and U. S. embassies.
And Hollywood would never dare to make a comedy in which President Obama’s head explodes at the end. You can’t make that kind of fun of America’s first black president. That would obviously be racist.
When Obama said, “they don't want to offend the sensitivities of somebody whose sensitivities ought to be offended,” he was actually praising the producers of The Interview for offending Kim Jong Un. Mr. President, there are a lot of people in this country who, rightly or wrongly, would like to offend your sensitivities. So, would you approve of a film in which your head is blown off at the end? Hmm, I didn’t think so.
Now, if this crappy comedy is ever released, it will be a blockbuster hit at the box office, what with all the free publicity it is getting.
ABBAS DECLARES THREE DAYS OF MOURNING FOR CONVICTED MURDERER
Israel is accused of a ‘barbaric act’ because a Palestinian minister, who had been convicted of murdering two Israeli children, died of a heart attack while participating in a riot and clash with Israeli soldiers
In 1984, Ziad Abu Ein was freed from an Israeli prison as part of the Oslo Accords. He had been serving time for planting a bomb that killed two Israeli children in 1979. He returned to the Palestinian territories where he was hailed as a hero. He was appointed Minister Against the Separation Wall and Settlements by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Abu Ein died of a heart attack last week after clashing with Israeli soldiers as he participated in a Palestinian riot. Abbas declared three days of mourning for the convicted child murderer.
MURDERED STUDENT’S FATHER: PALESTINIAN MINISTER NO ‘MARTYR’
By Joel Himelfarb
Newsmax
December 19, 2014
Many Palestinians have sought to portray Ziad Abu Ein – a Palestinian Authority (PA) minister who suffered a fatal heart attack last week after joining a crowd of Palestinian rioters who were marching towards a group of Israeli soldiers and refusing orders to stop – as a "martyr" victimized by Israel.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Abu Ein (who apparently died after inhaling tear gas) was killed in a "barbaric act, adding that "we can't remain silent." Abbas declared a three-day mourning period.
But Ein was no innocent victim, argues New Jersey resident Stephen M. Flatow, writing in the New York Jewish Week. While the PA denounces Israel for assassinating one of its deputy ministers and the international community portrays the incident as a diplomatic breach, "those of us who have felt the pain of Palestinian terrorism remember who Ziad Abu Ein really was, and will shed no tears over his passing," Flatow wrote.
Flatow, whose daughter Alisa was killed an April 1995 terrorist attack in Gaza, emphasizes that press accounts generally ignore or gloss over Ein's record as a terrorist.
On May 14, 1979, Ein was involved in placing a bomb at a marketplace in Tiberias in northern Israel, which killed two children and wounded 36 – some of them horribly maimed.
"I was hit in the chest and knocked down," recalled Chaim Mark, who had emigrated to Israel from Connecticut along with his wife Chaya. The couple were leaving a restaurant in the central marketplace of Tiberias when the bomb exploded.
"When I got up, I saw my wife with a leg and arm nearly blown off," Chaim recounted. Chaya Mark spent a year and a half in the hospital and underwent numerous surgeries. She was left severely handicapped.
Ziad Abu Ein – allegedly the terrorist who planted the bomb – fled to Chicago. After he was arrested in the United States, he simultaneously denied his guilt and defended the bombing.
But this did not stop "anti-Israel activists" like James Zogby from rallying to Ein's defense, saying he was being wrongly accused of "political crimes" and that he was being mistreated by U.S. prosecutors because he was an Arab, Flatow writes.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not agree, and Ein was extradited to Israel in December 1981 and tried and convicted of murder.
But he didn't stay behind bars for long. In 1984, Ein was one of a large groups of terrorists freed in a prisoner exchange deal.
After Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords in September 1993, "the Palestinian leadership began rewarding veteran killers," Flatow writes, and Ein later rose to become deputy minister of prisoner affairs.
That means "part of his job involved paying salaries to Palestinian terrorists imprisoned in Israel, and the families of terrorists who were killed while murdering Israelis," Flatow adds.
In 1984, Ziad Abu Ein was freed from an Israeli prison as part of the Oslo Accords. He had been serving time for planting a bomb that killed two Israeli children in 1979. He returned to the Palestinian territories where he was hailed as a hero. He was appointed Minister Against the Separation Wall and Settlements by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Abu Ein died of a heart attack last week after clashing with Israeli soldiers as he participated in a Palestinian riot. Abbas declared three days of mourning for the convicted child murderer.
MURDERED STUDENT’S FATHER: PALESTINIAN MINISTER NO ‘MARTYR’
By Joel Himelfarb
Newsmax
December 19, 2014
Many Palestinians have sought to portray Ziad Abu Ein – a Palestinian Authority (PA) minister who suffered a fatal heart attack last week after joining a crowd of Palestinian rioters who were marching towards a group of Israeli soldiers and refusing orders to stop – as a "martyr" victimized by Israel.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Abu Ein (who apparently died after inhaling tear gas) was killed in a "barbaric act, adding that "we can't remain silent." Abbas declared a three-day mourning period.
But Ein was no innocent victim, argues New Jersey resident Stephen M. Flatow, writing in the New York Jewish Week. While the PA denounces Israel for assassinating one of its deputy ministers and the international community portrays the incident as a diplomatic breach, "those of us who have felt the pain of Palestinian terrorism remember who Ziad Abu Ein really was, and will shed no tears over his passing," Flatow wrote.
Flatow, whose daughter Alisa was killed an April 1995 terrorist attack in Gaza, emphasizes that press accounts generally ignore or gloss over Ein's record as a terrorist.
On May 14, 1979, Ein was involved in placing a bomb at a marketplace in Tiberias in northern Israel, which killed two children and wounded 36 – some of them horribly maimed.
"I was hit in the chest and knocked down," recalled Chaim Mark, who had emigrated to Israel from Connecticut along with his wife Chaya. The couple were leaving a restaurant in the central marketplace of Tiberias when the bomb exploded.
"When I got up, I saw my wife with a leg and arm nearly blown off," Chaim recounted. Chaya Mark spent a year and a half in the hospital and underwent numerous surgeries. She was left severely handicapped.
Ziad Abu Ein – allegedly the terrorist who planted the bomb – fled to Chicago. After he was arrested in the United States, he simultaneously denied his guilt and defended the bombing.
But this did not stop "anti-Israel activists" like James Zogby from rallying to Ein's defense, saying he was being wrongly accused of "political crimes" and that he was being mistreated by U.S. prosecutors because he was an Arab, Flatow writes.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not agree, and Ein was extradited to Israel in December 1981 and tried and convicted of murder.
But he didn't stay behind bars for long. In 1984, Ein was one of a large groups of terrorists freed in a prisoner exchange deal.
After Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords in September 1993, "the Palestinian leadership began rewarding veteran killers," Flatow writes, and Ein later rose to become deputy minister of prisoner affairs.
That means "part of his job involved paying salaries to Palestinian terrorists imprisoned in Israel, and the families of terrorists who were killed while murdering Israelis," Flatow adds.
A DEFEAT FOR THE GUN CONTROL CROWD
A federal appeals court rules that it is a violation of the Second Amendment to bar gun ownership to a person because he has a history of mental illness
The court ruled in the case of a Michigan man who could not buy a gun because he had been committed to a mental health facility more than 20 years earlier, holding that this violated his Second Amendment rights.
MENTAL ILLNESS HISTORY RULED ON APPEAL TO NOT BAR GUN OWNERSHIP
Bloomberg News
December 19, 2014
A federal appeals court concluded that a history of mental illness shouldn’t bar citizens from owning a weapon in a first such ruling that may expand the rights of millions of U.S. gun owners.
A federal law barring a Michigan man in 2011 from owning a gun because he was committed to a mental institution more than 20 years earlier is unconstitutional, a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based court ruled Dec. 18.
A provision in law that bans gun ownership for anyone “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the panel found.
The ruling stems from a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found, for the first time, that the Constitution protects individual gun rights. In that case, the high court struck down a handgun ban imposed by the District of Columbia and the ruling raised questions about other restrictions on weapons.
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in the D.C. case resolved a constitutional question that had lurked for two centuries: whether the Second Amendment covers people who aren’t affiliated with a state-run militia.
Clifford Tyler’s case in Michigan also raises questions about the constitutional basis for restricting gun laws applying to other settings and for other classes of gunowners, Adam Winkler, a University of Los Angeles law professor, said in an e-mail today.
Narrowing Laws
“If seriously applied, this ruling could mean invalidation or narrowing of laws banning felons from having guns and restricting guns in school zones,” Winkler said.
Wyn Hornbuckle, a U.S. Justice Department spokesman, didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment after regular business hours today on the appeals court’s ruling.
Tyler, 73, was committed to a Michigan mental institution in 1985 after suffering a breakdown tied to a contentious divorce, according to court filings. After a month he was released and went back to work and had no other instances of being committed, the filings show.
When Tyler sought to get a gun permit in 2011, he was denied it on the basis that federal law excludes those with past history of mental illness from owning a weapon unless they fall into the statute’s exceptions.
Other classes of people, including undocumented workers, convicted felons and drug offenders, are also barred from legally owning a weapon under the law, but they are supposed to have an opportunity to show they fall into exceptions to the statute.
‘Catch-22’
The appeals court noted that since 1992, Congress has failed to fund programs that pay reviewers of such gun applications.
That puts citizens such as Tyler in a “Catch-22” position, Judge Danny Boggs of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said in his 48-page ruling.
“Tyler may not possess a weapon because he was once committed to a mental institution,” the judge noted. When he sought to get an exception, he was denied his rights to review because of Congressional inaction, Boggs said.
The law also suffers from constitutional flaws when it seeks to ban all citizens who have ever been in a mental hospital, the judge added.
“Not all previously institutionalized persons are mentally ill at a later time, so the law is at least somewhat overbroad,” he wrote.
The U.S. Census bureau said the country’s population totaled more than 310 million in 2011, the year Tyler was denied a gun permit. A Gallup poll that year showed 47 percent of U.S. households owned a gun.
The court ruled in the case of a Michigan man who could not buy a gun because he had been committed to a mental health facility more than 20 years earlier, holding that this violated his Second Amendment rights.
MENTAL ILLNESS HISTORY RULED ON APPEAL TO NOT BAR GUN OWNERSHIP
Bloomberg News
December 19, 2014
A federal appeals court concluded that a history of mental illness shouldn’t bar citizens from owning a weapon in a first such ruling that may expand the rights of millions of U.S. gun owners.
A federal law barring a Michigan man in 2011 from owning a gun because he was committed to a mental institution more than 20 years earlier is unconstitutional, a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based court ruled Dec. 18.
A provision in law that bans gun ownership for anyone “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the panel found.
The ruling stems from a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found, for the first time, that the Constitution protects individual gun rights. In that case, the high court struck down a handgun ban imposed by the District of Columbia and the ruling raised questions about other restrictions on weapons.
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in the D.C. case resolved a constitutional question that had lurked for two centuries: whether the Second Amendment covers people who aren’t affiliated with a state-run militia.
Clifford Tyler’s case in Michigan also raises questions about the constitutional basis for restricting gun laws applying to other settings and for other classes of gunowners, Adam Winkler, a University of Los Angeles law professor, said in an e-mail today.
Narrowing Laws
“If seriously applied, this ruling could mean invalidation or narrowing of laws banning felons from having guns and restricting guns in school zones,” Winkler said.
Wyn Hornbuckle, a U.S. Justice Department spokesman, didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment after regular business hours today on the appeals court’s ruling.
Tyler, 73, was committed to a Michigan mental institution in 1985 after suffering a breakdown tied to a contentious divorce, according to court filings. After a month he was released and went back to work and had no other instances of being committed, the filings show.
When Tyler sought to get a gun permit in 2011, he was denied it on the basis that federal law excludes those with past history of mental illness from owning a weapon unless they fall into the statute’s exceptions.
Other classes of people, including undocumented workers, convicted felons and drug offenders, are also barred from legally owning a weapon under the law, but they are supposed to have an opportunity to show they fall into exceptions to the statute.
‘Catch-22’
The appeals court noted that since 1992, Congress has failed to fund programs that pay reviewers of such gun applications.
That puts citizens such as Tyler in a “Catch-22” position, Judge Danny Boggs of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said in his 48-page ruling.
“Tyler may not possess a weapon because he was once committed to a mental institution,” the judge noted. When he sought to get an exception, he was denied his rights to review because of Congressional inaction, Boggs said.
The law also suffers from constitutional flaws when it seeks to ban all citizens who have ever been in a mental hospital, the judge added.
“Not all previously institutionalized persons are mentally ill at a later time, so the law is at least somewhat overbroad,” he wrote.
The U.S. Census bureau said the country’s population totaled more than 310 million in 2011, the year Tyler was denied a gun permit. A Gallup poll that year showed 47 percent of U.S. households owned a gun.
WE MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE LAUNCHING OUR NUCLEAR MISSILES IF WE HAVE TO
Problems run deep and wide within the Air Force’s nuclear missile corps
If it ever came to the need for us to launch a nuclear missile attack, we would be in deep doo-doo. After years of indifference by the Air Force and low personnel morale, our nuclear missile system is now in a state of decay.
AIR FORCE ADMITS NUCLEAR FLAWS, FACES UNCERTAIN PATHTO REMEDYING UNDERINVETMENT, LOW MORALE
By Robert Burns
Associated Press
December 20, 2014
WASHINGTON – Faced with one of its biggest challenges in years — repairing a troubled nuclear missile corps — the Air Force has taken an important first step by admitting, after years of denial, that its problems run deep and wide.
Less certain is whether it will find all the right fixes, apply them fully and convince a doubting force of launch officers, security guards and other nuclear workers that their small and narrow career field is not a dead end.
The stakes are huge.
The nation's strategy for deterring nuclear war rests in part on the 450 Minuteman 3 missiles that stand ready, 24/7, to launch at a moment's notice from underground silos in five states.
Some question the wisdom of that strategy in an era of security threats dominated by terrorism and cyberattacks. But whatever their role, those intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, will have to be safeguarded for years to come.
The responsibility is enormous, the cost of mistakes potentially colossal. The business end of these missiles can deliver mass destruction with breathtaking speed. Accidents, though rare, are an ever-present worry.
That's why it can be disquieting to hear missile officers describe their unhappiness and lack of faith in nuclear force leaders.
In sworn testimony to investigators looking into allegations that two ICBM commanders at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, were mistreating their subordinates, one officer spoke of deep pessimism.
"I go about most of my days wishing I was in another place, in another Air Force field," the officer said, according to a copy of investigation testimony provided in September and obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act. The officer's name was removed from the document by Air Force censors citing privacy protection.
The belated admission by the Air Force and the Pentagon's civilian leaders, after a series of AP stories revealing the issue, that the nuclear force is suffering from years of neglect, mismanagement and weak morale has yielded opposing interpretations of what it means.
Some, including experts who are critical of the Air Force, say it makes more obvious the need to invest billions to modernize the force. The flaws are fixable, they say. They cite a resurgent Russia and a belligerent North Korea as reasons to make the added investment to ensure that America's nuclear force is revitalized.
Subscribing to this view, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced on Nov. 14 that the Pentagon would make top-to-bottom changes — more than 100 in all — in how the nuclear force is managed and operated. He said the Pentagon would spend up to $10 billion more over six
years to improve the force. Ten days later Hagel announced his resignation, leaving questions about follow-through.
The opposing view is that this moment presents an opportunity to reconsider and restructure the nuclear force, possibly eliminating the ICBMs while enhancing the remaining sea- and air-launched nuclear forces. That view, however, is not predominant in the Obama administration, which favors the policy embraced by its predecessors, that the decades-old nuclear structure must be preserved for the foreseeable future.
What that leaves is a risk of reverting to past practices, perhaps with additional failures.
Eric Schlosser, author of "Command and Control," a highly regarded 2013 book on the ICBM and nuclear risk, said there is little doubt that the Pentagon needs to update the nuclear missile force's basic infrastructure.
"But that's a short-term solution," he said in an interview. "The bigger question is: How many land-based missiles do we need in the 21st century? How should they be deployed, and do we need them at all?"
Schlosser and others have expressed concern about morale problems in the force — an issue the Air Force had been slow to acknowledge even after the AP wrote last year about an unpublished RAND Corp. study that found evidence of "burnout" and hopelessness among missile crews and other members of the ICBM workforce.
Paul Bracken, a Yale University professor and author of "The Second Nuclear Age," says he finds it unsettling to read about neglect of the ICBM force and the turmoil in the ranks of those who operate the missiles.
"If things are so bad, if for some reason we did want to fire an individual nuclear weapon, could we? Would the weapon take off?" he asked in an interview this month with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "With all of the problems in our nuclear force, it seems to me that there'd be some real doubts. You really wouldn't want to use one of these weapons, because you don't know what is going to happen."
Bracken added that in the event of a massive nuclear attack by Russia, "I'm sure we could retaliate — we've got enough weaponry at our disposal. If we fire enough of them in a mass counterstrike, some are bound to work."
Evidence of what some would call the Air Force's willful disregard for its nuclear force is not hard to find. Michelle Spencer, for one, documented it in a little-noticed research paper she wrote for the Air Force in 2012. Her study team found examples of Air Force decisions to deemphasize nuclear training and education.
"At times the signs were clear that expertise and culture had declined to the point that the (nuclear) enterprise was in danger of catastrophic failure," she wrote.
Spencer put particular emphasis on nuclear expertise — how to expand it, how to maintain it and how to reward it.
"Without answers to these fundamental questions, the Air Force nuclear enterprise remains on the same trajectory as it has been for the last two decades - in ever-increasing decline," she wrote, adding that at some point it may be unable to sustain a nuclear mission that is supposed to be central to U.S. defense strategy.
If it ever came to the need for us to launch a nuclear missile attack, we would be in deep doo-doo. After years of indifference by the Air Force and low personnel morale, our nuclear missile system is now in a state of decay.
AIR FORCE ADMITS NUCLEAR FLAWS, FACES UNCERTAIN PATHTO REMEDYING UNDERINVETMENT, LOW MORALE
By Robert Burns
Associated Press
December 20, 2014
WASHINGTON – Faced with one of its biggest challenges in years — repairing a troubled nuclear missile corps — the Air Force has taken an important first step by admitting, after years of denial, that its problems run deep and wide.
Less certain is whether it will find all the right fixes, apply them fully and convince a doubting force of launch officers, security guards and other nuclear workers that their small and narrow career field is not a dead end.
The stakes are huge.
The nation's strategy for deterring nuclear war rests in part on the 450 Minuteman 3 missiles that stand ready, 24/7, to launch at a moment's notice from underground silos in five states.
Some question the wisdom of that strategy in an era of security threats dominated by terrorism and cyberattacks. But whatever their role, those intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, will have to be safeguarded for years to come.
The responsibility is enormous, the cost of mistakes potentially colossal. The business end of these missiles can deliver mass destruction with breathtaking speed. Accidents, though rare, are an ever-present worry.
That's why it can be disquieting to hear missile officers describe their unhappiness and lack of faith in nuclear force leaders.
In sworn testimony to investigators looking into allegations that two ICBM commanders at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, were mistreating their subordinates, one officer spoke of deep pessimism.
"I go about most of my days wishing I was in another place, in another Air Force field," the officer said, according to a copy of investigation testimony provided in September and obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act. The officer's name was removed from the document by Air Force censors citing privacy protection.
The belated admission by the Air Force and the Pentagon's civilian leaders, after a series of AP stories revealing the issue, that the nuclear force is suffering from years of neglect, mismanagement and weak morale has yielded opposing interpretations of what it means.
Some, including experts who are critical of the Air Force, say it makes more obvious the need to invest billions to modernize the force. The flaws are fixable, they say. They cite a resurgent Russia and a belligerent North Korea as reasons to make the added investment to ensure that America's nuclear force is revitalized.
Subscribing to this view, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced on Nov. 14 that the Pentagon would make top-to-bottom changes — more than 100 in all — in how the nuclear force is managed and operated. He said the Pentagon would spend up to $10 billion more over six
years to improve the force. Ten days later Hagel announced his resignation, leaving questions about follow-through.
The opposing view is that this moment presents an opportunity to reconsider and restructure the nuclear force, possibly eliminating the ICBMs while enhancing the remaining sea- and air-launched nuclear forces. That view, however, is not predominant in the Obama administration, which favors the policy embraced by its predecessors, that the decades-old nuclear structure must be preserved for the foreseeable future.
What that leaves is a risk of reverting to past practices, perhaps with additional failures.
Eric Schlosser, author of "Command and Control," a highly regarded 2013 book on the ICBM and nuclear risk, said there is little doubt that the Pentagon needs to update the nuclear missile force's basic infrastructure.
"But that's a short-term solution," he said in an interview. "The bigger question is: How many land-based missiles do we need in the 21st century? How should they be deployed, and do we need them at all?"
Schlosser and others have expressed concern about morale problems in the force — an issue the Air Force had been slow to acknowledge even after the AP wrote last year about an unpublished RAND Corp. study that found evidence of "burnout" and hopelessness among missile crews and other members of the ICBM workforce.
Paul Bracken, a Yale University professor and author of "The Second Nuclear Age," says he finds it unsettling to read about neglect of the ICBM force and the turmoil in the ranks of those who operate the missiles.
"If things are so bad, if for some reason we did want to fire an individual nuclear weapon, could we? Would the weapon take off?" he asked in an interview this month with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "With all of the problems in our nuclear force, it seems to me that there'd be some real doubts. You really wouldn't want to use one of these weapons, because you don't know what is going to happen."
Bracken added that in the event of a massive nuclear attack by Russia, "I'm sure we could retaliate — we've got enough weaponry at our disposal. If we fire enough of them in a mass counterstrike, some are bound to work."
Evidence of what some would call the Air Force's willful disregard for its nuclear force is not hard to find. Michelle Spencer, for one, documented it in a little-noticed research paper she wrote for the Air Force in 2012. Her study team found examples of Air Force decisions to deemphasize nuclear training and education.
"At times the signs were clear that expertise and culture had declined to the point that the (nuclear) enterprise was in danger of catastrophic failure," she wrote.
Spencer put particular emphasis on nuclear expertise — how to expand it, how to maintain it and how to reward it.
"Without answers to these fundamental questions, the Air Force nuclear enterprise remains on the same trajectory as it has been for the last two decades - in ever-increasing decline," she wrote, adding that at some point it may be unable to sustain a nuclear mission that is supposed to be central to U.S. defense strategy.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
MISINTERPRETED TERMS: HOMICIDE, UNARMED AND TEENAGER
The misinterpretation of terms has led to the condemnation of righteous cops
The death of Eric Garner in the NYPD chokehold arrest was ruled a homicide by the coroner’s office. Rabble rouser Al Sharpton and other black ‘community’ leaders immediately seized on the term ‘homicide’ to mean that Garner had been murdered by the cops. And many Americans, not just the black community, misinterpreted the term, thus leading to shock and outrage when a grand jury failed to return any indictments in that case.
Much has been made of the fact that Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were unarmed when they were killed by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman and Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson respectively. The term ‘unarmed’ can easily be misinterpreted to mean that in a confrontation with the police, an unarmed man is harmless.
News headlines often read “Cops Kill Teenager” or something like it. And what do people think of when they see the term ‘teenager’? They immediately conjure up the image of a 12, 13, or 14-year old boy.
The American public is totally ignorant about the meaning of the term ‘homicide’. They have no idea that the term is a legal one, meaning that the death of a person was caused by another person, not that the person was murdered. The difference between the two terms – homicide and murder – is as different as the difference between day and night. But in their ignorance about the meaning of ‘homicide’, the public is shocked and outraged when a grand jury refuses to indict cops for murder.
In the Trayvon Martin case, Trayvon was shot to death when Zimmerman feared for his life as the unarmed teenager was pounding his head into the concrete pavement. And Wilson shot Brown, who had already injured him, as the unarmed giant charged at the officer. What the public doesn’t seem to understand, and the black community refuses to understand, is that an unarmed person can pose a deadly threat to another person.
There are teenagers and there are teenagers. In most instances, when cops kill a teenager they are not killing a 12, 13, or 14-year-old kid, they ar e killing a 17, 18, or 19-year-old youth who can be just as dangerous as a person in his 20s, 30s, 40s, etc.
Eric Garner and unarmed teenagers Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown all died as the result of a homicide, but they were not murdered. And the unarmed teenagers presented an imminent threat to the lives of George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson.
It is the misinterpretation of these terms by an ignorant public that has led to much civil unrest and given righteous cops an undeserved black eye.
The death of Eric Garner in the NYPD chokehold arrest was ruled a homicide by the coroner’s office. Rabble rouser Al Sharpton and other black ‘community’ leaders immediately seized on the term ‘homicide’ to mean that Garner had been murdered by the cops. And many Americans, not just the black community, misinterpreted the term, thus leading to shock and outrage when a grand jury failed to return any indictments in that case.
Much has been made of the fact that Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were unarmed when they were killed by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman and Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson respectively. The term ‘unarmed’ can easily be misinterpreted to mean that in a confrontation with the police, an unarmed man is harmless.
News headlines often read “Cops Kill Teenager” or something like it. And what do people think of when they see the term ‘teenager’? They immediately conjure up the image of a 12, 13, or 14-year old boy.
The American public is totally ignorant about the meaning of the term ‘homicide’. They have no idea that the term is a legal one, meaning that the death of a person was caused by another person, not that the person was murdered. The difference between the two terms – homicide and murder – is as different as the difference between day and night. But in their ignorance about the meaning of ‘homicide’, the public is shocked and outraged when a grand jury refuses to indict cops for murder.
In the Trayvon Martin case, Trayvon was shot to death when Zimmerman feared for his life as the unarmed teenager was pounding his head into the concrete pavement. And Wilson shot Brown, who had already injured him, as the unarmed giant charged at the officer. What the public doesn’t seem to understand, and the black community refuses to understand, is that an unarmed person can pose a deadly threat to another person.
There are teenagers and there are teenagers. In most instances, when cops kill a teenager they are not killing a 12, 13, or 14-year-old kid, they ar e killing a 17, 18, or 19-year-old youth who can be just as dangerous as a person in his 20s, 30s, 40s, etc.
Eric Garner and unarmed teenagers Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown all died as the result of a homicide, but they were not murdered. And the unarmed teenagers presented an imminent threat to the lives of George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson.
It is the misinterpretation of these terms by an ignorant public that has led to much civil unrest and given righteous cops an undeserved black eye.
AND THE ATTEMPTED LYNCHING GOES ON AND ON
A black Missouri legislator wants St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch investigated for prosecutorial misconduct for manipulating the grand jury not to indict Darren Wilson
The lynch mob still has plenty of legs. First they wanted to lynch Darren Wilson and now Missouri State Representative Karla May is accusing St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch of prosecutorial misconduct and wants him to be investigated for manipulating the grand jury not to indict Wilson in the death of Michael Brown. Rep. May is an African-American Democrat from St. Louis.
LAWMAKER WANTS INVESTIGATION OF ST. LOUIS PROSECUTOR
By Jim Salter
Associated Press
December 19, 2014
ST. LOUIS -- A Missouri lawmaker is calling for an investigation of St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, saying he "manipulated" the grand jury in the Ferguson case. McCulloch said in a radio interview on Friday that some witnesses obviously lied to the grand jury.
State Rep. Karla May is pushing for a state investigation, saying she believes McCulloch helped sway the grand jury into the decision not to indict Ferguson officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was black and unarmed.
McCulloch, who convened the grand jury in August, was interviewed Friday by KTRS Radio in St. Louis. It was his first interview since he announced the grand jury decision on Nov. 24.
"Clearly some were not telling the truth," McCulloch said.
He made reference to one woman who claimed to have seen the shooting. McCulloch said she "clearly wasn't present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed up Wilson's version of events, he said.
McCulloch did not return messages left with his office by The Associated Press on Friday seeking comment about May's allegations, and whether he would pursue perjury charges against any witnesses who may have lied.
The shooting by a white police officer on Aug. 9 spurred significant unrest, both in August and immediately after the grand jury decision was announced. Twelve Ferguson-area businesses, along with police cars, were burned on Nov. 24, and several other businesses were damaged.
In the radio interview, McCulloch also defended the decision to make the announcement at night, saying it was best for schools and allowed business owners time to decide whether to open the next day.
A joint House and Senate committee is already investigating why Gov. Jay Nixon did not use National Guard troops in Ferguson on Nov. 24. May, a St. Louis Democrat, sent a letter Thursday to committee chairman Sen. Kurt Schaefer, urging that the investigation expand to look at whether McCulloch committed prosecutorial misconduct.
"Many St. Louis-area residents believe — and there is at least some evidence to suggest — that Mr. McCulloch manipulated the grand jury process from the beginning to ensure that Officer Wilson would not be indicted," May wrote.
She said in an interview that McCulloch should have removed himself from the case at the outset.
"I don't believe he followed proper procedures when he presented evidence to the grand jury," May said. "To me, he was working for the defendant in this case and not the victim."
Critics had called for McCulloch to either step aside or for Nixon to appoint a special prosecutor, citing concerns about whether McCulloch could fairly oversee the case. McCulloch's father was a police officer killed in the line of duty by a black assailant in the 1960s.
McCulloch said immediately after the announcement that the jury of nine whites and three blacks met on 25 separate days over three months, hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses, including three medical examiners and experts on blood, toxicology and firearms and other issues. He said he assigned prosecutors in his office to present evidence, rather than himself, because he was "fully aware of unfounded but growing concern that the investigation might not be fair."
Ferguson Mayor James Knowles III and others expressed anger that of the hundreds of National Guard troops dispatched to the St. Louis region on Nov. 24, none were in Ferguson as the announcement was made.
No timetable has been set for the legislative committee's investigation, and it wasn't clear if the committee would consider investigating McCulloch. A message left with Schaefer was not immediately returned.
The lynch mob still has plenty of legs. First they wanted to lynch Darren Wilson and now Missouri State Representative Karla May is accusing St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch of prosecutorial misconduct and wants him to be investigated for manipulating the grand jury not to indict Wilson in the death of Michael Brown. Rep. May is an African-American Democrat from St. Louis.
LAWMAKER WANTS INVESTIGATION OF ST. LOUIS PROSECUTOR
By Jim Salter
Associated Press
December 19, 2014
ST. LOUIS -- A Missouri lawmaker is calling for an investigation of St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, saying he "manipulated" the grand jury in the Ferguson case. McCulloch said in a radio interview on Friday that some witnesses obviously lied to the grand jury.
State Rep. Karla May is pushing for a state investigation, saying she believes McCulloch helped sway the grand jury into the decision not to indict Ferguson officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was black and unarmed.
McCulloch, who convened the grand jury in August, was interviewed Friday by KTRS Radio in St. Louis. It was his first interview since he announced the grand jury decision on Nov. 24.
"Clearly some were not telling the truth," McCulloch said.
He made reference to one woman who claimed to have seen the shooting. McCulloch said she "clearly wasn't present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed up Wilson's version of events, he said.
McCulloch did not return messages left with his office by The Associated Press on Friday seeking comment about May's allegations, and whether he would pursue perjury charges against any witnesses who may have lied.
The shooting by a white police officer on Aug. 9 spurred significant unrest, both in August and immediately after the grand jury decision was announced. Twelve Ferguson-area businesses, along with police cars, were burned on Nov. 24, and several other businesses were damaged.
In the radio interview, McCulloch also defended the decision to make the announcement at night, saying it was best for schools and allowed business owners time to decide whether to open the next day.
A joint House and Senate committee is already investigating why Gov. Jay Nixon did not use National Guard troops in Ferguson on Nov. 24. May, a St. Louis Democrat, sent a letter Thursday to committee chairman Sen. Kurt Schaefer, urging that the investigation expand to look at whether McCulloch committed prosecutorial misconduct.
"Many St. Louis-area residents believe — and there is at least some evidence to suggest — that Mr. McCulloch manipulated the grand jury process from the beginning to ensure that Officer Wilson would not be indicted," May wrote.
She said in an interview that McCulloch should have removed himself from the case at the outset.
"I don't believe he followed proper procedures when he presented evidence to the grand jury," May said. "To me, he was working for the defendant in this case and not the victim."
Critics had called for McCulloch to either step aside or for Nixon to appoint a special prosecutor, citing concerns about whether McCulloch could fairly oversee the case. McCulloch's father was a police officer killed in the line of duty by a black assailant in the 1960s.
McCulloch said immediately after the announcement that the jury of nine whites and three blacks met on 25 separate days over three months, hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses, including three medical examiners and experts on blood, toxicology and firearms and other issues. He said he assigned prosecutors in his office to present evidence, rather than himself, because he was "fully aware of unfounded but growing concern that the investigation might not be fair."
Ferguson Mayor James Knowles III and others expressed anger that of the hundreds of National Guard troops dispatched to the St. Louis region on Nov. 24, none were in Ferguson as the announcement was made.
No timetable has been set for the legislative committee's investigation, and it wasn't clear if the committee would consider investigating McCulloch. A message left with Schaefer was not immediately returned.
THE MICHAEL BROWN-ERIC GARNER LYNCH MOBS
“We have a responsibility to wake you up, and the only way people get woken up is if you disrupt their everyday normalcy”
It is downright shameful that so few arrests were made of protesters blocking highways and street intersections, and interfering with the ability of people to do their shopping. The lawlessness displayed by those protesting the grand jury decisions in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases has not only been tolerated by the cops, but it has been encouraged by politicians, including the President of the United States.
MOBS OF NEW YORK
The idea that we are all complicit in the Eric Garner grand-jury decision is false
By Daniel Henninger
The Wall Street Journal
December 10, 2014
How did we get to the point in the United States where street protesters are treated as sainted figures, no matter what they do? How did it happen that important public leaders—the American president, the mayor of New York, college presidents—feel obliged to legitimize these protests, no matter what they do to a city, its citizens or owners of private property? Why is it that the leaders of America’s most important institutions are no longer capable of recognizing a mob when they see one?
On Wednesday last week, the day of the grand jury decision in the Eric Garner case on Staten Island, hundreds of people marched through New York City’s main streets and highways, blocked bridges, invaded the crowds of parents and kids gathered for the lighting of the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree, and spread themselves on the floor as “die-ins” amid commuters in Grand Central Terminal.
Despite the massive inconvenience, many New Yorkers, who like to think they live in a tolerant city, more or less accepted this venting. Message sent and absorbed. Whatever political course the controversial Garner case would take next, it was time for everyone to resume their lives on Thursday.
But no. One sensed where this was headed on seeing photos in the morning papers of New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, stoically accepting that his face and suit were covered with red paint—“blood” tossed by a professional anarchist. The protesters decided that immobilizing city streets wasn’t enough to make their point.
They marched into the Apple store on Fifth Avenue. They did it at the huge, crowded Macy’s on Herald Square. They entered an H&M store and blocked the escalators. Inside a Forever 21 store in Times Square, they surrounded a display taxi cab and covered it with a sign: “The system is guilty. Burn it down.”
Where is it written that a city has to put up with this?
It got worse.
In Berkeley, Calif., a mob protesting the grand jury decisions in the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases broke the window of a Trader Joe ’s supermarket. They wrecked a RadioShack store and smashed ATM machines.
That still wasn’t enough.
This Monday, some two dozen New York City Council members went into the street in front of city hall and disrupted traffic. For the people gridlocked in their cars, taxis and delivery trucks, Councilman Andy King explained: “We have a responsibility to wake you up, and the only way people get woken up is if you disrupt their everyday normalcy.”
That evening, President Obama in an interview gave his approval. Calling violence “counterproductive,” the president nonetheless said, “Power concedes nothing without a fight, that’s true, but it’s also true that a country’s conscience has to be triggered by some inconvenience.” This, he said, was “the value of peaceful protests, activism.”
Let me rephrase that: The president of the United States is holding the door open for politics by mob rule, the invasion of private property and economic damage to store owners.
Police Commissioner Bratton said he was giving the protesters “breathing room.” New York’s mayor, Bill de Blasio , said the effect of the demonstrations was “minimal.”
What an irony. At the infamous 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, two groups—the Yippies (formally, the Youth International Party) and the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam did the same thing. New York’s theatrical protest groups are the progeny of the Yippies and the Mobilization. But now, they are the Democrats’ base.
A city is a fragile exercise in normal daily life. The idea that we are all complicit if we don’t metaphorically “burn down” this normalcy for some cause is false.
The need to protect civilized urban life from the poison of disorder is the reason George Kelling and the late James Q. Wilson formulated the “broken windows” theory of policing. Some, notably Al Sharpton , are now arguing that “broken windows” is a mistake, that we should absorb minor disorders and police only major violations.
But disordered city life has already caused one of the greatest social upheavals of our time. The charter-schools and voucher movements exist largely because minority parents in rough neighborhoods wanted to get their children out of chaotic, dangerous public schools, where daily disorder made learning too difficult. That has been a productive protest.
President Obama created a task force on policing techniques. Good. Maybe we will learn something. But perhaps this task force should extend its writ and have a real “dialogue” with the residents of these neighborhoods about the quality of their daily lives beyond the police. Where
is an objective social documentarian when you need one?
If we have learned anything in the past century, it is that when politically approved mobs start invading shopkeepers and smashing their windows in the name of politics, it is a sign that a society is veering off the rails.
It is downright shameful that so few arrests were made of protesters blocking highways and street intersections, and interfering with the ability of people to do their shopping. The lawlessness displayed by those protesting the grand jury decisions in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases has not only been tolerated by the cops, but it has been encouraged by politicians, including the President of the United States.
MOBS OF NEW YORK
The idea that we are all complicit in the Eric Garner grand-jury decision is false
By Daniel Henninger
The Wall Street Journal
December 10, 2014
How did we get to the point in the United States where street protesters are treated as sainted figures, no matter what they do? How did it happen that important public leaders—the American president, the mayor of New York, college presidents—feel obliged to legitimize these protests, no matter what they do to a city, its citizens or owners of private property? Why is it that the leaders of America’s most important institutions are no longer capable of recognizing a mob when they see one?
On Wednesday last week, the day of the grand jury decision in the Eric Garner case on Staten Island, hundreds of people marched through New York City’s main streets and highways, blocked bridges, invaded the crowds of parents and kids gathered for the lighting of the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree, and spread themselves on the floor as “die-ins” amid commuters in Grand Central Terminal.
Despite the massive inconvenience, many New Yorkers, who like to think they live in a tolerant city, more or less accepted this venting. Message sent and absorbed. Whatever political course the controversial Garner case would take next, it was time for everyone to resume their lives on Thursday.
But no. One sensed where this was headed on seeing photos in the morning papers of New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, stoically accepting that his face and suit were covered with red paint—“blood” tossed by a professional anarchist. The protesters decided that immobilizing city streets wasn’t enough to make their point.
They marched into the Apple store on Fifth Avenue. They did it at the huge, crowded Macy’s on Herald Square. They entered an H&M store and blocked the escalators. Inside a Forever 21 store in Times Square, they surrounded a display taxi cab and covered it with a sign: “The system is guilty. Burn it down.”
Where is it written that a city has to put up with this?
It got worse.
In Berkeley, Calif., a mob protesting the grand jury decisions in the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases broke the window of a Trader Joe ’s supermarket. They wrecked a RadioShack store and smashed ATM machines.
That still wasn’t enough.
This Monday, some two dozen New York City Council members went into the street in front of city hall and disrupted traffic. For the people gridlocked in their cars, taxis and delivery trucks, Councilman Andy King explained: “We have a responsibility to wake you up, and the only way people get woken up is if you disrupt their everyday normalcy.”
That evening, President Obama in an interview gave his approval. Calling violence “counterproductive,” the president nonetheless said, “Power concedes nothing without a fight, that’s true, but it’s also true that a country’s conscience has to be triggered by some inconvenience.” This, he said, was “the value of peaceful protests, activism.”
Let me rephrase that: The president of the United States is holding the door open for politics by mob rule, the invasion of private property and economic damage to store owners.
Police Commissioner Bratton said he was giving the protesters “breathing room.” New York’s mayor, Bill de Blasio , said the effect of the demonstrations was “minimal.”
What an irony. At the infamous 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, two groups—the Yippies (formally, the Youth International Party) and the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam did the same thing. New York’s theatrical protest groups are the progeny of the Yippies and the Mobilization. But now, they are the Democrats’ base.
A city is a fragile exercise in normal daily life. The idea that we are all complicit if we don’t metaphorically “burn down” this normalcy for some cause is false.
The need to protect civilized urban life from the poison of disorder is the reason George Kelling and the late James Q. Wilson formulated the “broken windows” theory of policing. Some, notably Al Sharpton , are now arguing that “broken windows” is a mistake, that we should absorb minor disorders and police only major violations.
But disordered city life has already caused one of the greatest social upheavals of our time. The charter-schools and voucher movements exist largely because minority parents in rough neighborhoods wanted to get their children out of chaotic, dangerous public schools, where daily disorder made learning too difficult. That has been a productive protest.
President Obama created a task force on policing techniques. Good. Maybe we will learn something. But perhaps this task force should extend its writ and have a real “dialogue” with the residents of these neighborhoods about the quality of their daily lives beyond the police. Where
is an objective social documentarian when you need one?
If we have learned anything in the past century, it is that when politically approved mobs start invading shopkeepers and smashing their windows in the name of politics, it is a sign that a society is veering off the rails.
11-YEAR-OLD GIRL NOT RAPED BY 21 BLACK MEN BECAUSE SHE NEVER YELLED THE WORD RAPE
Quanell X, Houston’s Al Sharpton wannabe, blamed the 11-year-old victim of a 21-man gang rape
It is hard for me to comprehend how Quanell X, Houston’s Al Sharpton wannabe, can be given any credibility when he blames an 11-year-old girl for her rape by 21 black men.
WHY DOES QUANELL X SUPPORT SOME RAPE VICTIMS BUT SHAME OTHERS?
By Angelica Leicht
Houston Presss
December 19, 2014
Quanell X, community leader and head of the New Black Panthers, is probably a good ally to have on your side if you're a crime victim. After all, the man quite obviously knows how to grab headlines. His innate showmanship -- that keen ability to lure in the media -- is what helps him bring attention to cases that aren't as visible in the first place.
But Quanell's ability to draw national attention isn't always a good thing. Not when it comes to his handling of rape victims, anyway.
You see, in recent years, there have been two nationally-reported rape cases in which Quanell has spoken out. In both cases, the victims were very young teenage girls. Both girls were minorities -- one Black, the other Hispanic -- and unfortunately, both rapes were very brutal.
They seemed, on the surface, quite similar in nature. Yet in one case, Quanell defended the young girl. In the other, he defended the men who were later convicted of gang-raping her. Why were the two reactions were so different? Well, that's anyone's guess.
Let's start with Jada, the most recent traumatic case. Quanell appeared on MSNBC this week alongside Jada, a Houston-area high school student who says she was drugged and raped by two African-American men. Following the incident, she was bullied and mocked incessantly thanks to photos of her half-naked, unconscious body, which were posted to Twitter by her peers.
When it comes to Jada, Quanell raised some good questions when MSNBC gave the case some airtime. Quanell asked why there was a five-month lag between the rape report and arrest -- an obvious issue, considering the evidence in the case -- and he even praised investigators for following through.
Ultimately, Quanell proved a fantastic, public supporter for Jada. His appearance helped reiterate to the nation that the teen was very much the victim in this case.
But in the other case -- the rape of an 11-year-old Hispanic girl by a group of 21 African-American men in Cleveland, Texas in 2011 -- the young girl was very much the victim, too. You'd just never know it by Quanell's reaction.
Quanell was one of the most outspoken critics of the Cleveland rape victim, despite the assault having been caught on video. Photos and the video of the young girl's rape even went viral, and the clips that could be shown on the news were extremely graphic. What couldn't be shown? Well, we'd rather not hypothesize.
Yet for some reason, Quanell did not stand beside the young girl in this case. In fact, he stood against her. And he did so at a press conference in front of a Cleveland church, where he asked where her parents were when this happened.
Quanell started off the press conference by saying that Hispanics "have a right to be angry with black men who ravaged a young girl ... but the first house you need to stop at is her Mama and Daddy's house!" The audience cheered and hollered in agreement.
"How is that child in that community experiencing so much sex with so many African-American men?" Quanell continued. "Where was the mother?"
Such an outright condemnation is not only appalling, it is also entirely at odds with the way Quanell (rightly) handled Jada's rape. After all, Quanell never questioned where her parents were -- not that he should have, mind you. No rape victim or her parents deserve the blame being placed on them.
And Quanell took the blame game even further, suggesting that we should question the child's rape claims since she'd never actually yelled the word rape during the assault and hadn't made an "outcry" until after footage of the assault surfaced. He seemed to care little that some of the men had admitted to the rape -- DNA was even used to wring a guilty plea out Cordney Demond Bennett, the last of 21 assailants convicted in the case.
"It was not the young girl that yelled rape. Stop right there -- something is wrong, brothers and sisters," Quanell X declared during his speech.
The thing is, Quanell is smart enough to know that just because the girl did not yell rape does not mean the act was consensual. Not to mention, an 11-year-old cannot consent to sexual intercourse with a group of grown men -- or any men, for that matter. He also did not condemn Jada for not yelling rape until photos started to circulate of her assault.
But as odd as that victim-blaming was, stranger still were the racially-charged sentiments, an element also missing from Jada's case. He went so far as to claim the investigation into the gang-rape of an 11-year-old girl was being "run by the KKK."
"We do not want someone with a malicious racist motive to rid your community of an entire generation of black men," Quanell said.
At no time -- not once -- did Quanell suggest such a thing was happening in Jada's case, where the alleged rapists were also black.
And even after Quanell's initial comments, he continued to spew the anti-victim sentiment. On Michael Berry's show, Quanell stated that the 11-year-old had simply picked her assailants out of a yearbook.
He also claimed that he had looked extensively at the girl's Facebook page, where he found proof of sexual relationships with other older men who were not black.
But Quanell did not stalk the Facebook posts of the teen girl in Jada's case, or explore her sexual history. He did not blame the victim, nor did he attempt to slut-shame or suggest an ulterior motive at work. He just supported and spoke, aligned with the actual victim.
The final outcome of the Cleveland gang-rape proved the severity of the issue. Of the 21 men, two of the adult men requested trials, and they paid dearly for it. The juries in those cases hand down life or 99-year prison sentences.
Eleven of the other adult males received 15-year sentences in exchange for pleading guilty to sexual assault of a child. One adult male received a reduced seven-year sentence in exchange for pleading guilty to indecency with a child by exposure.
And of the seven juveniles found to be involved in the rape, and all entered guilty pleas for seven-year probated sentences.
So given the legitimacy of both claims, why in one case is the girl a victim, and in the other, she is an aggressor? It's hard to tell why Quanell's reactions were so polarized, but it seems unlikely that his views on sexual assault could have changed so drastically from one case to the next. After all, there aren't that many differences in the two cases, other than the ethnicity of the victims.
If Quanell wants to act as an ally to rape victims, great. But that support should not change from person to person, gender to gender, or ethnicity to ethnicity. And that's precisely what it looks like may have happened here.
It is hard for me to comprehend how Quanell X, Houston’s Al Sharpton wannabe, can be given any credibility when he blames an 11-year-old girl for her rape by 21 black men.
WHY DOES QUANELL X SUPPORT SOME RAPE VICTIMS BUT SHAME OTHERS?
By Angelica Leicht
Houston Presss
December 19, 2014
Quanell X, community leader and head of the New Black Panthers, is probably a good ally to have on your side if you're a crime victim. After all, the man quite obviously knows how to grab headlines. His innate showmanship -- that keen ability to lure in the media -- is what helps him bring attention to cases that aren't as visible in the first place.
But Quanell's ability to draw national attention isn't always a good thing. Not when it comes to his handling of rape victims, anyway.
You see, in recent years, there have been two nationally-reported rape cases in which Quanell has spoken out. In both cases, the victims were very young teenage girls. Both girls were minorities -- one Black, the other Hispanic -- and unfortunately, both rapes were very brutal.
They seemed, on the surface, quite similar in nature. Yet in one case, Quanell defended the young girl. In the other, he defended the men who were later convicted of gang-raping her. Why were the two reactions were so different? Well, that's anyone's guess.
Let's start with Jada, the most recent traumatic case. Quanell appeared on MSNBC this week alongside Jada, a Houston-area high school student who says she was drugged and raped by two African-American men. Following the incident, she was bullied and mocked incessantly thanks to photos of her half-naked, unconscious body, which were posted to Twitter by her peers.
When it comes to Jada, Quanell raised some good questions when MSNBC gave the case some airtime. Quanell asked why there was a five-month lag between the rape report and arrest -- an obvious issue, considering the evidence in the case -- and he even praised investigators for following through.
Ultimately, Quanell proved a fantastic, public supporter for Jada. His appearance helped reiterate to the nation that the teen was very much the victim in this case.
But in the other case -- the rape of an 11-year-old Hispanic girl by a group of 21 African-American men in Cleveland, Texas in 2011 -- the young girl was very much the victim, too. You'd just never know it by Quanell's reaction.
Quanell was one of the most outspoken critics of the Cleveland rape victim, despite the assault having been caught on video. Photos and the video of the young girl's rape even went viral, and the clips that could be shown on the news were extremely graphic. What couldn't be shown? Well, we'd rather not hypothesize.
Yet for some reason, Quanell did not stand beside the young girl in this case. In fact, he stood against her. And he did so at a press conference in front of a Cleveland church, where he asked where her parents were when this happened.
Quanell started off the press conference by saying that Hispanics "have a right to be angry with black men who ravaged a young girl ... but the first house you need to stop at is her Mama and Daddy's house!" The audience cheered and hollered in agreement.
"How is that child in that community experiencing so much sex with so many African-American men?" Quanell continued. "Where was the mother?"
Such an outright condemnation is not only appalling, it is also entirely at odds with the way Quanell (rightly) handled Jada's rape. After all, Quanell never questioned where her parents were -- not that he should have, mind you. No rape victim or her parents deserve the blame being placed on them.
And Quanell took the blame game even further, suggesting that we should question the child's rape claims since she'd never actually yelled the word rape during the assault and hadn't made an "outcry" until after footage of the assault surfaced. He seemed to care little that some of the men had admitted to the rape -- DNA was even used to wring a guilty plea out Cordney Demond Bennett, the last of 21 assailants convicted in the case.
"It was not the young girl that yelled rape. Stop right there -- something is wrong, brothers and sisters," Quanell X declared during his speech.
The thing is, Quanell is smart enough to know that just because the girl did not yell rape does not mean the act was consensual. Not to mention, an 11-year-old cannot consent to sexual intercourse with a group of grown men -- or any men, for that matter. He also did not condemn Jada for not yelling rape until photos started to circulate of her assault.
But as odd as that victim-blaming was, stranger still were the racially-charged sentiments, an element also missing from Jada's case. He went so far as to claim the investigation into the gang-rape of an 11-year-old girl was being "run by the KKK."
"We do not want someone with a malicious racist motive to rid your community of an entire generation of black men," Quanell said.
At no time -- not once -- did Quanell suggest such a thing was happening in Jada's case, where the alleged rapists were also black.
And even after Quanell's initial comments, he continued to spew the anti-victim sentiment. On Michael Berry's show, Quanell stated that the 11-year-old had simply picked her assailants out of a yearbook.
He also claimed that he had looked extensively at the girl's Facebook page, where he found proof of sexual relationships with other older men who were not black.
But Quanell did not stalk the Facebook posts of the teen girl in Jada's case, or explore her sexual history. He did not blame the victim, nor did he attempt to slut-shame or suggest an ulterior motive at work. He just supported and spoke, aligned with the actual victim.
The final outcome of the Cleveland gang-rape proved the severity of the issue. Of the 21 men, two of the adult men requested trials, and they paid dearly for it. The juries in those cases hand down life or 99-year prison sentences.
Eleven of the other adult males received 15-year sentences in exchange for pleading guilty to sexual assault of a child. One adult male received a reduced seven-year sentence in exchange for pleading guilty to indecency with a child by exposure.
And of the seven juveniles found to be involved in the rape, and all entered guilty pleas for seven-year probated sentences.
So given the legitimacy of both claims, why in one case is the girl a victim, and in the other, she is an aggressor? It's hard to tell why Quanell's reactions were so polarized, but it seems unlikely that his views on sexual assault could have changed so drastically from one case to the next. After all, there aren't that many differences in the two cases, other than the ethnicity of the victims.
If Quanell wants to act as an ally to rape victims, great. But that support should not change from person to person, gender to gender, or ethnicity to ethnicity. And that's precisely what it looks like may have happened here.
ONE LESS BURGLAR IN THE WORLD
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
December 18, 2014
A couple of burglars chose the wrong house to break into in Min Hill N.C. on Tuesday. One is dead, the other one is in deep legal trouble.
Anna Marie Wyant, 73, and her 14-year old grandson were in the home. Both were sick and they were sort of taking care of each other. The grandparents had a gun as they had been the victim of a couple of break-ins in the past. The youngster went to the kitchen to get some munchies for grannie when he heard glass break, and saw a bad guy halfway in the window. The kid told the bad guy to take off. He kept coming so the kid put three bullets in his happy ass, killing him very completely dead.
The dead guy was Isai Robert Delcid, 18. The not-dead guy, his brother Carlos Delcid, is now a guest of the county in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg jail. He is facing burglary charges. (I don’t know if North Carolina has a felony murder law or not.)
The 14-year old’s father was shot to death in an auto repair shop he owned in 2008. Two men are in prison for that crime.
So far the cops are calling this shooting justifiable homicide. In California the grandparents could be facing criminal charges for having a gun where a minor could get hold of it. I guess the legislature in North Carolina is not comprised of idiots like ours is.
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
December 18, 2014
A couple of burglars chose the wrong house to break into in Min Hill N.C. on Tuesday. One is dead, the other one is in deep legal trouble.
Anna Marie Wyant, 73, and her 14-year old grandson were in the home. Both were sick and they were sort of taking care of each other. The grandparents had a gun as they had been the victim of a couple of break-ins in the past. The youngster went to the kitchen to get some munchies for grannie when he heard glass break, and saw a bad guy halfway in the window. The kid told the bad guy to take off. He kept coming so the kid put three bullets in his happy ass, killing him very completely dead.
The dead guy was Isai Robert Delcid, 18. The not-dead guy, his brother Carlos Delcid, is now a guest of the county in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg jail. He is facing burglary charges. (I don’t know if North Carolina has a felony murder law or not.)
The 14-year old’s father was shot to death in an auto repair shop he owned in 2008. Two men are in prison for that crime.
So far the cops are calling this shooting justifiable homicide. In California the grandparents could be facing criminal charges for having a gun where a minor could get hold of it. I guess the legislature in North Carolina is not comprised of idiots like ours is.
Friday, December 19, 2014
BOTCHED SWAT RAID LEAVES FAMILY WITH $1 MILLION HOSPITAL BILL
Toddler horribly disfigured during botched Georgia SWAT raid when struck in face by flash-bang grenade
When the Phonesavanh family’s Wisconsin home burned down, Bounkham, his wife Alecia and their four children were forced to move in temporarily with his sister in Cornelia, Georgia. Bounkham’s sister had converted her garage into a bedroom for the family to stay there.
Based on an informant’s claim that 30-year-old Wanis Thonetheva, Bounkham’s nephew, was selling meth at his mother’s house, narcotic officers obtained a ‘no-knock’ warrant to search the house. At 2 a.m. on May 28, a Habersham County SWAT team stormed the residence without warning. During the raid, one of the cops tossed a flash-bang grenade into the play pen where 19-month-old Bounkham ‘Bou Bou’ Phonesavanh Jr. was sleeping.
The explosion awakened the parents. They saw an officer rush out of the room with Bou Bou in his arms. When Bounkham spotted blood in the play pen he insisted on seeing the toddler. He was told to stay put and threatened with arrest. They cops said that the blood came from a broken tooth. The family was held for two hours before they were allowed to go to the hospital to check on their son.
Bou Bou was critically injured with serious burns to his face and body and a collapsed lung. The toddler spent five weeks in a medically-induced coma and has had numerous surgeries to repair the disfigurement he suffered. The hospital bills thus far exceed $1 million and Bou Bou still requires further treatment.
The Phonesavanhs claim that they never saw the nephew during the two months they stayed at the Cornelia residence. Thonetheva was arrested elsewhere a few hours later. He pled guilty to selling meth and received a 10-year prison sentence.
A grand jury refused to indict any of the officers, but according to WGCL-TV, it did find that “the drug investigation leading to the raid was hurried and sloppy, saying the tragedy happened, in part, because of well-intentioned people in too big of a hurry to consider the consequences of their actions.”
The officer who made out the search warrant affidavit and the judge who issued the warrant both resigned after the raid and the SWAT team was disbanded.
The Phonesavanhs say they have no hope of paying the hospital bills and claim they were never in debt prior to the botched raid. Habersham County has refused to compensate them for Bou Bou’s hospital treatment. The county is protected by a Georgia state ‘gratuity’ law that keeps local governments from having to pay for any damages. Their only recourse is a civil lawsuit.
John Nelson, the founder of the SWAT concept, once confided in me that he was very upset with the proliferation of SWAT teams. John, a very close buddy, told me he feared something like this was bound to happen when small police agencies formed their own SWAT teams.
When the Phonesavanh family’s Wisconsin home burned down, Bounkham, his wife Alecia and their four children were forced to move in temporarily with his sister in Cornelia, Georgia. Bounkham’s sister had converted her garage into a bedroom for the family to stay there.
Based on an informant’s claim that 30-year-old Wanis Thonetheva, Bounkham’s nephew, was selling meth at his mother’s house, narcotic officers obtained a ‘no-knock’ warrant to search the house. At 2 a.m. on May 28, a Habersham County SWAT team stormed the residence without warning. During the raid, one of the cops tossed a flash-bang grenade into the play pen where 19-month-old Bounkham ‘Bou Bou’ Phonesavanh Jr. was sleeping.
The explosion awakened the parents. They saw an officer rush out of the room with Bou Bou in his arms. When Bounkham spotted blood in the play pen he insisted on seeing the toddler. He was told to stay put and threatened with arrest. They cops said that the blood came from a broken tooth. The family was held for two hours before they were allowed to go to the hospital to check on their son.
Bou Bou was critically injured with serious burns to his face and body and a collapsed lung. The toddler spent five weeks in a medically-induced coma and has had numerous surgeries to repair the disfigurement he suffered. The hospital bills thus far exceed $1 million and Bou Bou still requires further treatment.
The Phonesavanhs claim that they never saw the nephew during the two months they stayed at the Cornelia residence. Thonetheva was arrested elsewhere a few hours later. He pled guilty to selling meth and received a 10-year prison sentence.
A grand jury refused to indict any of the officers, but according to WGCL-TV, it did find that “the drug investigation leading to the raid was hurried and sloppy, saying the tragedy happened, in part, because of well-intentioned people in too big of a hurry to consider the consequences of their actions.”
The officer who made out the search warrant affidavit and the judge who issued the warrant both resigned after the raid and the SWAT team was disbanded.
The Phonesavanhs say they have no hope of paying the hospital bills and claim they were never in debt prior to the botched raid. Habersham County has refused to compensate them for Bou Bou’s hospital treatment. The county is protected by a Georgia state ‘gratuity’ law that keeps local governments from having to pay for any damages. Their only recourse is a civil lawsuit.
John Nelson, the founder of the SWAT concept, once confided in me that he was very upset with the proliferation of SWAT teams. John, a very close buddy, told me he feared something like this was bound to happen when small police agencies formed their own SWAT teams.
ALL THOSE POOR BLACK MEN GETTING SHOT BY COPS FOR NO REASON
There are those in the black community who see all shootings of black men by white cops as racially motivated
It’s in the eye of the beholder. Many in the black community believe that every time a white cop shoots a black man, he did it for no reason … other than that he is a racist.
SEARCHING FOR THE NEXT MICHAEL BROWN
By Colin Flaherty
American Thinker
December 18, 2014
Families are lining up to make their son the next Michael Brown. Waiting to tell their story of how racist cops killed their child For No Reason Whatsoever.
The latest example comes from Philadelphia, where, early Monday morning, police shot Brandon Tate-Brown. The details are familiar enough: the 26-year old Tate-Brown was driving at 3 a.m. without headlights when two officers stopped him.
If this stop was anything like most others, then Tate-Brown convinced himself he was being pulled over for one reason only: driving while black.
Soon after he got out of the car, a struggle began. That’s how reporters describe it, so they can leave open the journalistic possibility that instead of Tate-Brown resisting arrest and attacking police, maybe the cops attacked him For No Reason Whatsoever.
Other than that they are degenerate racists, of course.
Whether Tate-Brown attacked the cops or the cops attacked him For No Reason Whatsoever, he was soon back in his car, lunging for a gun.
There they killed him.
The gun was stolen. The dead man was a hardcore convict with a history of shooting people and doing time in prison. Being in possession of that gun – stolen or not – would have been ticket back to the penitentiary.
That did not matter much to the outlaw’s family.
“From my eyes, he was a good guy,” Tate-Brown’s mother told the local NBC affiliate. “I would like to know why the police have the right to kill instead of disabling. It has to stop.”
Tate-Brown’s mother last saw him during the Sunday night Philadelphia Eagles football game. The family said he had a jovial spirit despite a difficult past, said the reporter for the NBC affiliate. He had just gotten a job and was getting his life together, they said.
It is not known whether he learned that jovial spirit in prison, where he recently spent five years for trying to kill someone. He had four prior convictions, two for attempted murder and related charges (including violation of the Uniform Firearms Act), theft, and receiving stolen property.
The next night, Tate-Brown’s mother was in the street and, with the assistance of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, was telling a crowd that her son would never do anything like starting a fight with a cop.
No one seemed to care that she was not telling the truth.
About 100 miles down the freeway in Baltimore, just a few hours before, another cop faced the same situation – this time with a different result.
A cop at a gas station noticed the strong aroma of sweet, sweet marijuana coming out of a car. So he radioed a patrol car to make the stop.
The police removed the driver from the car without incident. But in the back seat, 19-year old Donte Jones refused the request to get out of the car while sitting with his hands in his waistband. Police threatened to tase him, so he shot one. Three times.
He ran. They caught him. Alive.
Later at a press conference, police officials described Jones as a repeat offender with weapons violations.
The cop is still alive.
The Baltimore Sun, known more for the absence of crime coverage than actual crime stories, actually got at least part of this one right:
The shooting comes just hours after hundreds marched city streets to demonstrate in the wake of two high-profile deaths of individuals in police custody. Police commissioner Anthony Batts said the timing of this shooting was not lost on him against the backdrop of the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and Eric Garner in New York.
“We've had marches nationwide over the fact that we have lost lives in police custody,” Batts told the Baltimore Sun. “I wonder if we'll have those same marches as officers are shot, too.”
We’ll get back to you on that, Commissioner.
Even before the “hands up don’t shoot” marches with songs about racist police became the latest national rage, black families reflexively and deceptively defended their criminal relatives – regardless.
Chicago is teeming with examples.
In March, police saw Raason Hill (or Shaw, depending) conducting what looked like a drug deal. He ran when they tried to stop him.
Soon he was hopping over a fence, and a gun fell out of his waistband: a .40-caliber handgun with laser sighting. Raason picked it up and pointed it at the police. They shot the 20-year old dead.
Then the riot began. On video. The Chicago Tribune got this part right: “The incident drew a crowd of more than 100 into the street after the shooting, some of whom said they were friends or relatives of the man who was shot. Many were yelling and some fought. One man tore down yellow police tape. At least three were taken away in handcuffs.”
All agreed that Raason was a good boy who never had a gun. Everyone said so. Never did anything wrong. Well, maybe one or two things, but that did not matter, because he was trying to get his life together.
Still in Chicago, in August, police responded to reports of a running gun battle. They arrived at the scene to find 17-year-old DeSean Pittman, holding a gun, standing over the body of a person he had just shot.
When DeSean pointed the gun at the cops, they shot him dead.
At a memorial ceremony for DeSean, the crowd heard one story after another of how DeSean was a saint and the police were racist villains. Murderers.
DeSean’s parents said the police murdered their son For No Reason Whatsoever.
DNA Info picks up the story:
The group gathered for the vigil allegedly turned against police when a woman pointed at an officer monitoring the group and yelled, "That's the rookie motherfucker that killed him," prosecutors said Wednesday.
The crowd began to chant, "Kill the rookie," as some pelted police with candles and bricks, authorities said. People threw branches, bottles and other debris from the street while yelling "CPDK," which stands for "Chicago Police Department Killer," officials said.
At some point, a woman drove a Ford Escape into an officer, sending him to the hospital with a fractured leg. Two other officers also were hospitalized after they crashed their squad car heading to the melee, authorities said.
Police arrested eight people. While some were released without charges, five were charged with felony counts of aggravated assault of a police officer and mob action, according to court records.
A day or so after the memorial turned riot, pictures of DeSean emerged. There’s DeSean holding a gun. And other gun. There’s DeSean taking a selfie, showing off his previous bullet wounds. There’s DeSean posing with his proud father, gauze and tape covering his torso from a recent hospital stay for another violent encounter. There’s DeSean’s family, flashing gang signs.
There’s DeSean on a train, beating a passenger.
There’s DeSean’s father on Facebook, proudly displaying many of these pictures of his son, the thug.
“I feel they executed my son,” DeSean’s dad told vice.com.
In another Chicago neighborhood, two hours before DeSean pointed a gun at police, so did Roshad McIntosh. He met the same end. His mother and friends said the same thing. “Chicago police gunned my son down for no reason. They said he had his hands up telling them not to shoot they killed him anyway,” DeSean’s mother said to the Chicago Tribune.
That was a lie, too. Though that did not stop anyone from repeating it hundreds of times on Facebook and Twitter and in the streets.
Let’s finish with a video from Chicago. In December 2012, Jamal Moore was one of five black people in a car refusing police orders to stop. Moments before, five black people matching their description and car had robbed a Chicago trucking company. With a gun.
So the chase was on. But not for long. The car crashed, and everyone got away, except for Jamal: he started beating one of the cops who caught him. And when he was finished with him, he headed for the cop’s partner.
He ignored her pleas to stop, and she shot him dead.
Soon Jamal’s family was on the street, telling people their son, cousin, brother, whatever was a good person who was shot For No Reason Whatsoever.
That is when the riot started: The crowd attacked police with bottles and bricks and whatever.
One bystander, on video, reminded his fellow rioters of one fact that is now often heard even today: “They can’t do shit if we start a riot right now,” he said. “They can’t shoot all of us.”
It’s in the eye of the beholder. Many in the black community believe that every time a white cop shoots a black man, he did it for no reason … other than that he is a racist.
SEARCHING FOR THE NEXT MICHAEL BROWN
By Colin Flaherty
American Thinker
December 18, 2014
Families are lining up to make their son the next Michael Brown. Waiting to tell their story of how racist cops killed their child For No Reason Whatsoever.
The latest example comes from Philadelphia, where, early Monday morning, police shot Brandon Tate-Brown. The details are familiar enough: the 26-year old Tate-Brown was driving at 3 a.m. without headlights when two officers stopped him.
If this stop was anything like most others, then Tate-Brown convinced himself he was being pulled over for one reason only: driving while black.
Soon after he got out of the car, a struggle began. That’s how reporters describe it, so they can leave open the journalistic possibility that instead of Tate-Brown resisting arrest and attacking police, maybe the cops attacked him For No Reason Whatsoever.
Other than that they are degenerate racists, of course.
Whether Tate-Brown attacked the cops or the cops attacked him For No Reason Whatsoever, he was soon back in his car, lunging for a gun.
There they killed him.
The gun was stolen. The dead man was a hardcore convict with a history of shooting people and doing time in prison. Being in possession of that gun – stolen or not – would have been ticket back to the penitentiary.
That did not matter much to the outlaw’s family.
“From my eyes, he was a good guy,” Tate-Brown’s mother told the local NBC affiliate. “I would like to know why the police have the right to kill instead of disabling. It has to stop.”
Tate-Brown’s mother last saw him during the Sunday night Philadelphia Eagles football game. The family said he had a jovial spirit despite a difficult past, said the reporter for the NBC affiliate. He had just gotten a job and was getting his life together, they said.
It is not known whether he learned that jovial spirit in prison, where he recently spent five years for trying to kill someone. He had four prior convictions, two for attempted murder and related charges (including violation of the Uniform Firearms Act), theft, and receiving stolen property.
The next night, Tate-Brown’s mother was in the street and, with the assistance of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, was telling a crowd that her son would never do anything like starting a fight with a cop.
No one seemed to care that she was not telling the truth.
About 100 miles down the freeway in Baltimore, just a few hours before, another cop faced the same situation – this time with a different result.
A cop at a gas station noticed the strong aroma of sweet, sweet marijuana coming out of a car. So he radioed a patrol car to make the stop.
The police removed the driver from the car without incident. But in the back seat, 19-year old Donte Jones refused the request to get out of the car while sitting with his hands in his waistband. Police threatened to tase him, so he shot one. Three times.
He ran. They caught him. Alive.
Later at a press conference, police officials described Jones as a repeat offender with weapons violations.
The cop is still alive.
The Baltimore Sun, known more for the absence of crime coverage than actual crime stories, actually got at least part of this one right:
The shooting comes just hours after hundreds marched city streets to demonstrate in the wake of two high-profile deaths of individuals in police custody. Police commissioner Anthony Batts said the timing of this shooting was not lost on him against the backdrop of the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and Eric Garner in New York.
“We've had marches nationwide over the fact that we have lost lives in police custody,” Batts told the Baltimore Sun. “I wonder if we'll have those same marches as officers are shot, too.”
We’ll get back to you on that, Commissioner.
Even before the “hands up don’t shoot” marches with songs about racist police became the latest national rage, black families reflexively and deceptively defended their criminal relatives – regardless.
Chicago is teeming with examples.
In March, police saw Raason Hill (or Shaw, depending) conducting what looked like a drug deal. He ran when they tried to stop him.
Soon he was hopping over a fence, and a gun fell out of his waistband: a .40-caliber handgun with laser sighting. Raason picked it up and pointed it at the police. They shot the 20-year old dead.
Then the riot began. On video. The Chicago Tribune got this part right: “The incident drew a crowd of more than 100 into the street after the shooting, some of whom said they were friends or relatives of the man who was shot. Many were yelling and some fought. One man tore down yellow police tape. At least three were taken away in handcuffs.”
All agreed that Raason was a good boy who never had a gun. Everyone said so. Never did anything wrong. Well, maybe one or two things, but that did not matter, because he was trying to get his life together.
Still in Chicago, in August, police responded to reports of a running gun battle. They arrived at the scene to find 17-year-old DeSean Pittman, holding a gun, standing over the body of a person he had just shot.
When DeSean pointed the gun at the cops, they shot him dead.
At a memorial ceremony for DeSean, the crowd heard one story after another of how DeSean was a saint and the police were racist villains. Murderers.
DeSean’s parents said the police murdered their son For No Reason Whatsoever.
DNA Info picks up the story:
The group gathered for the vigil allegedly turned against police when a woman pointed at an officer monitoring the group and yelled, "That's the rookie motherfucker that killed him," prosecutors said Wednesday.
The crowd began to chant, "Kill the rookie," as some pelted police with candles and bricks, authorities said. People threw branches, bottles and other debris from the street while yelling "CPDK," which stands for "Chicago Police Department Killer," officials said.
At some point, a woman drove a Ford Escape into an officer, sending him to the hospital with a fractured leg. Two other officers also were hospitalized after they crashed their squad car heading to the melee, authorities said.
Police arrested eight people. While some were released without charges, five were charged with felony counts of aggravated assault of a police officer and mob action, according to court records.
A day or so after the memorial turned riot, pictures of DeSean emerged. There’s DeSean holding a gun. And other gun. There’s DeSean taking a selfie, showing off his previous bullet wounds. There’s DeSean posing with his proud father, gauze and tape covering his torso from a recent hospital stay for another violent encounter. There’s DeSean’s family, flashing gang signs.
There’s DeSean on a train, beating a passenger.
There’s DeSean’s father on Facebook, proudly displaying many of these pictures of his son, the thug.
“I feel they executed my son,” DeSean’s dad told vice.com.
In another Chicago neighborhood, two hours before DeSean pointed a gun at police, so did Roshad McIntosh. He met the same end. His mother and friends said the same thing. “Chicago police gunned my son down for no reason. They said he had his hands up telling them not to shoot they killed him anyway,” DeSean’s mother said to the Chicago Tribune.
That was a lie, too. Though that did not stop anyone from repeating it hundreds of times on Facebook and Twitter and in the streets.
Let’s finish with a video from Chicago. In December 2012, Jamal Moore was one of five black people in a car refusing police orders to stop. Moments before, five black people matching their description and car had robbed a Chicago trucking company. With a gun.
So the chase was on. But not for long. The car crashed, and everyone got away, except for Jamal: he started beating one of the cops who caught him. And when he was finished with him, he headed for the cop’s partner.
He ignored her pleas to stop, and she shot him dead.
Soon Jamal’s family was on the street, telling people their son, cousin, brother, whatever was a good person who was shot For No Reason Whatsoever.
That is when the riot started: The crowd attacked police with bottles and bricks and whatever.
One bystander, on video, reminded his fellow rioters of one fact that is now often heard even today: “They can’t do shit if we start a riot right now,” he said. “They can’t shoot all of us.”
HEAD OF PHILADELPHIA COP UNION SLAMS PROTESTERS
"Where were the protesters at any of the almost daily shootings and killings [of blacks by blacks] in Philadelphia?"
The head of a cop union, speaking Wednesday at a ceremony honoring 83 Philadelphia police officers for valor, bravery and heroism, took the occasion to slam those protesting the grand jury decisions in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases, calling them a lynch mob. John McNesby, president of the local Fraternal Order of Police lodge, also noted that there are no mass protests over the daily shootings of blacks by blacks.
Here are some excerpts of McNesby’s remarks:
"We have to guard against a growing trend in this country to replace due process and the legal system with media-fueled mob rule and sensationalism,"
"While it appears to enrage professional hate-mongers, the fact is, police officers are covered by the same constitutional protections that they are risking their lives to protect [for] everyone else."
"As a society we have to soon decide between the rule of law and due process, or a group of inspired lynch mobs."
In the wee hours of Monday morning, two Philly cops shot and killed Brandon Tate-Brown when, after a traffic stop, they became involved in a struggle with the 26-year old black parolee. The killing has created an uproar in the black community. McNesby had harsh words for those getting all exercised over Tate-Brown’s death:
"When our officers are confronted by a convicted, violent felon who should not be out of prison - who is in possession of a stolen, loaded firearm - what else do you want us to do? We're not going to call a timeout. We're not going to call a news hotline."
Police officers, of course, expect their unions to defend them in excessive force complaints. It is good to hear McNesby slam the protesters and Patrick Lynch, president of NYPD’s Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, blast Mayor de Blasio. Unfortunately, most Americans are not listening to McNesby and Lynch. Instead they are listening to Obama, Holder, Sharpton and numerous talking-heads on TV, all of them labeling white cops as racists whenever they shoot black men.
The head of a cop union, speaking Wednesday at a ceremony honoring 83 Philadelphia police officers for valor, bravery and heroism, took the occasion to slam those protesting the grand jury decisions in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases, calling them a lynch mob. John McNesby, president of the local Fraternal Order of Police lodge, also noted that there are no mass protests over the daily shootings of blacks by blacks.
Here are some excerpts of McNesby’s remarks:
"We have to guard against a growing trend in this country to replace due process and the legal system with media-fueled mob rule and sensationalism,"
"While it appears to enrage professional hate-mongers, the fact is, police officers are covered by the same constitutional protections that they are risking their lives to protect [for] everyone else."
"As a society we have to soon decide between the rule of law and due process, or a group of inspired lynch mobs."
In the wee hours of Monday morning, two Philly cops shot and killed Brandon Tate-Brown when, after a traffic stop, they became involved in a struggle with the 26-year old black parolee. The killing has created an uproar in the black community. McNesby had harsh words for those getting all exercised over Tate-Brown’s death:
"When our officers are confronted by a convicted, violent felon who should not be out of prison - who is in possession of a stolen, loaded firearm - what else do you want us to do? We're not going to call a timeout. We're not going to call a news hotline."
Police officers, of course, expect their unions to defend them in excessive force complaints. It is good to hear McNesby slam the protesters and Patrick Lynch, president of NYPD’s Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, blast Mayor de Blasio. Unfortunately, most Americans are not listening to McNesby and Lynch. Instead they are listening to Obama, Holder, Sharpton and numerous talking-heads on TV, all of them labeling white cops as racists whenever they shoot black men.
MEXICAN POLICE FORCES IN CAHOOTS WITH OR CONTROLLED BY CRIMINAL CARTELS
Some units of Mexico’s military are also in cahoots with the country’s criminal cartels
Our neighbors to the south have a real problem with their police forces and some of their military units. The very forces that are supposed to protect the Mexican people from the criminal cartels are actually in cahoots with them or under their control.
GERMAN GUNS IN MEXICO AND THE FIVE LEVELS OF POLICE COLLUSION
Borderland Beat
December 17, 2014
A newspaper in Germany reported that 36 German guns were seized from the municipal police in Iguala, Mexico following the September disappearance of 43 student protesters, illustrating the deep ties of these police to the local criminal group Guerreros Unidos.
According to daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung, three dozen Heckler & Koch G36 assault rifles -- in addition to Italian and US weaponry -- were among 228 firearms Mexican prosecutors confiscated from police installations in Iguala, in the southern state of Guerrero.
The Mexican government does not issue German weaponry to its armed forces or police. This leads to the presumption that the weapons came from the Iguala police's criminal overlords, the Guerreros Unidos.
Authorities have not yet established whether the German weapons were used to attack the student protesters, who were apparently murdered by members of the Guerreros Unidos working in collaboration with municipal police, possibly on the orders of the local mayor and his wife.
The whereabouts of all but one of the bodies remains unclear and debate continues over where and how the alleged murders of the students occurred.
Exporting German weapons to states engaged in an armed conflict or with poor human rights records is expressly prohibited. However, according to Germany's Federal Office for Economics and Export Control (BAFA), Heckler & Koch was allowed to export some 9,000 G36 assault rifles to Mexico between 2006 and 2009 with the stipulation that they not be made available in the conflict-ridden states of Guerrero, Jalisco, Chiapas and Chihuahua.
Despite this ban, a journalist with Radio Netherlands cited by Sin Embargo has reported that G36 rifles were used in a previous state police attack on student protesters in Guerrero, in 2011, and that these guns have also showed up in the hands of police in Chihuahua.
According to German peace activist Jürgen Grässlin, holes in Germany's monitoring system have helped facilitate the black market trade in weapons from this country, which is the world's third-largest arms exporter. German arms manufacturer SIG Sauer has also come under fire for illicit arms exports.
Analyzing levels of collusion
The weapons are a good place to start when analyzing levels of collusion between security forces, police and organized crime. A Mexican intelligence agent, speaking on condition of anonymity, told InSight Crime that his agency counts five levels of collusion between police and criminal groups.
Level 1: The police simply allow criminal groups to act without interfering.
Level 2: The police accept (or demand) payment for allowing criminal groups to act without interfering.
Level 3: The police protect criminal groups and their enterprises for a fee.
Level 4: The police work for the criminal groups and their enterprises for a fee.
Level 5: The criminal group runs the police as part of the criminal enterprise.
The discovery of the German weapons appears to make for a Level 5 situation, the intelligence official said.
To be sure, the fact that the Iguala municipal police were in possession of prohibited firearms suggests that they acquired them from criminals with access to black market weaponry -- most likely the Guerreros Unidos. If this is the case, it indicates the deep integration of the Iguala police into this drug gang, which may have seen the police as their "men" who they needed to better arm.
In some ways, this is the reverse of what is more commonly seen with arms: security force weapons falling into the hands of criminals (weapons recovered from Mexican cartels have been traced to Guatemalan and Honduran military stocks). That would be something closer to a Level 3 scenario.
In this case, the police were the recipients, rather than the providers, of black market weapons. Mexico's municipal police forces tend to be underfunded and lack adequate equipment, which may have incentivized the illegal purchase of high-power firearms for what the criminal group considers part of their armed wing.
The weapons are just one piece of evidence of a Level 5 collusion. In this rather blatant case, the police are thought to have literally corralled the students and handed them to the criminal group. Normally, the evidence is not so stark; in the less obvious cases, a peek at the guns could be a good way to start figuring out who is working for whom.
Our neighbors to the south have a real problem with their police forces and some of their military units. The very forces that are supposed to protect the Mexican people from the criminal cartels are actually in cahoots with them or under their control.
GERMAN GUNS IN MEXICO AND THE FIVE LEVELS OF POLICE COLLUSION
Borderland Beat
December 17, 2014
A newspaper in Germany reported that 36 German guns were seized from the municipal police in Iguala, Mexico following the September disappearance of 43 student protesters, illustrating the deep ties of these police to the local criminal group Guerreros Unidos.
According to daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung, three dozen Heckler & Koch G36 assault rifles -- in addition to Italian and US weaponry -- were among 228 firearms Mexican prosecutors confiscated from police installations in Iguala, in the southern state of Guerrero.
The Mexican government does not issue German weaponry to its armed forces or police. This leads to the presumption that the weapons came from the Iguala police's criminal overlords, the Guerreros Unidos.
Authorities have not yet established whether the German weapons were used to attack the student protesters, who were apparently murdered by members of the Guerreros Unidos working in collaboration with municipal police, possibly on the orders of the local mayor and his wife.
The whereabouts of all but one of the bodies remains unclear and debate continues over where and how the alleged murders of the students occurred.
Exporting German weapons to states engaged in an armed conflict or with poor human rights records is expressly prohibited. However, according to Germany's Federal Office for Economics and Export Control (BAFA), Heckler & Koch was allowed to export some 9,000 G36 assault rifles to Mexico between 2006 and 2009 with the stipulation that they not be made available in the conflict-ridden states of Guerrero, Jalisco, Chiapas and Chihuahua.
Despite this ban, a journalist with Radio Netherlands cited by Sin Embargo has reported that G36 rifles were used in a previous state police attack on student protesters in Guerrero, in 2011, and that these guns have also showed up in the hands of police in Chihuahua.
According to German peace activist Jürgen Grässlin, holes in Germany's monitoring system have helped facilitate the black market trade in weapons from this country, which is the world's third-largest arms exporter. German arms manufacturer SIG Sauer has also come under fire for illicit arms exports.
Analyzing levels of collusion
The weapons are a good place to start when analyzing levels of collusion between security forces, police and organized crime. A Mexican intelligence agent, speaking on condition of anonymity, told InSight Crime that his agency counts five levels of collusion between police and criminal groups.
Level 1: The police simply allow criminal groups to act without interfering.
Level 2: The police accept (or demand) payment for allowing criminal groups to act without interfering.
Level 3: The police protect criminal groups and their enterprises for a fee.
Level 4: The police work for the criminal groups and their enterprises for a fee.
Level 5: The criminal group runs the police as part of the criminal enterprise.
The discovery of the German weapons appears to make for a Level 5 situation, the intelligence official said.
To be sure, the fact that the Iguala municipal police were in possession of prohibited firearms suggests that they acquired them from criminals with access to black market weaponry -- most likely the Guerreros Unidos. If this is the case, it indicates the deep integration of the Iguala police into this drug gang, which may have seen the police as their "men" who they needed to better arm.
In some ways, this is the reverse of what is more commonly seen with arms: security force weapons falling into the hands of criminals (weapons recovered from Mexican cartels have been traced to Guatemalan and Honduran military stocks). That would be something closer to a Level 3 scenario.
In this case, the police were the recipients, rather than the providers, of black market weapons. Mexico's municipal police forces tend to be underfunded and lack adequate equipment, which may have incentivized the illegal purchase of high-power firearms for what the criminal group considers part of their armed wing.
The weapons are just one piece of evidence of a Level 5 collusion. In this rather blatant case, the police are thought to have literally corralled the students and handed them to the criminal group. Normally, the evidence is not so stark; in the less obvious cases, a peek at the guns could be a good way to start figuring out who is working for whom.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
OBAMA PILES IT ON THE COPS
The President and the First Lady also tell People Magazine that both have been victims of racism
It's one thing for me to be mistaken for a waiter at a gala. It's another thing for my son to be mistaken for a robber and to be handcuffed, or worse, if he happens to be walking down the street and is dressed the way teenagers dress.
Thus spoke President Obama as he and the First Lady were interviewed by People Magazine.
Now let me digest that statement. It would appear that Obama was referring to the deadly confrontation between Ferguson cop Darren Wilson and Michael Brown. Mistaken for a robber? What a load of crap. Brown had just robbed a convenience store. Dressed the way teenagers dress? More shit! The clothing Brown wore was exactly like the clothing described by the robbery victim.
As for Eric Garner’s fatal confrontation with NY cops, Obama praised basketball superstar LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers for wearing an ‘I Can’t Breathe’ T-shirt during his pregame workout before the start of the Cavaliers-Brooklyn Nets game on December 9. Obama also said he would like to see more athletes do that.
It sure looks to me like Obama was piling it on the cops.
Obama and Michelle also told People that both had been victims of racism. One time, before he became President, Obama was waiting for his car outside a restaurant when a man came up to him, flipped him his keys and told Obama to fetch him his car. On another occasion, Obama was wearing a tuxedo at a black-tie dinner when someone mistook him for a waiter. And the President said that as a black man living on the South Side of Chicago, he had trouble getting cabs to stop for him.
Michelle said that after she became First Lady, she made an inconspicuous shopping trip to a Target Store where a woman customer mistook her for a Target worker and asked her to get something from a shelf.
Pardon me, but I cannot go on. Suddenly I’m being overcome by a bad case of white guilt.
It's one thing for me to be mistaken for a waiter at a gala. It's another thing for my son to be mistaken for a robber and to be handcuffed, or worse, if he happens to be walking down the street and is dressed the way teenagers dress.
Thus spoke President Obama as he and the First Lady were interviewed by People Magazine.
Now let me digest that statement. It would appear that Obama was referring to the deadly confrontation between Ferguson cop Darren Wilson and Michael Brown. Mistaken for a robber? What a load of crap. Brown had just robbed a convenience store. Dressed the way teenagers dress? More shit! The clothing Brown wore was exactly like the clothing described by the robbery victim.
As for Eric Garner’s fatal confrontation with NY cops, Obama praised basketball superstar LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers for wearing an ‘I Can’t Breathe’ T-shirt during his pregame workout before the start of the Cavaliers-Brooklyn Nets game on December 9. Obama also said he would like to see more athletes do that.
It sure looks to me like Obama was piling it on the cops.
Obama and Michelle also told People that both had been victims of racism. One time, before he became President, Obama was waiting for his car outside a restaurant when a man came up to him, flipped him his keys and told Obama to fetch him his car. On another occasion, Obama was wearing a tuxedo at a black-tie dinner when someone mistook him for a waiter. And the President said that as a black man living on the South Side of Chicago, he had trouble getting cabs to stop for him.
Michelle said that after she became First Lady, she made an inconspicuous shopping trip to a Target Store where a woman customer mistook her for a Target worker and asked her to get something from a shelf.
Pardon me, but I cannot go on. Suddenly I’m being overcome by a bad case of white guilt.
THE INTERVIEW: WHAT IF?
The movie ‘comedy’ about the fictional assassination of North Korea’s leader is trash that is in very bad taste
Kim Jong Un is not a likable guy. In fact, North Korea’s ‘Dear Leader’ is a despicable human being. And he is also a nuclear armed enemy of the United States.
The Interview is a Sony Pictures movie ‘comedy’ about a TV host and his producer who are recruited by the CIA to assassinate Kim Jong Un. At the end of the film, the Dear Leader’s head explodes. The movie is scheduled for release on December 25.
A hacker group calling itself the Guardians of Peace breached Sony’s company servers, thereby gaining access to emails between top executives and private information about Sony employees and the actors starring in its films. The group has threatened terrorist attacks on theaters showing The Interview.
The New York premiere planned for the Sunshine Cinema in Manhattan’s Lower East Side has been cancelled by Landmark Theaters. Carmike Cinemas, a theater chain with 278 theaters and 2,917 screens in 41 states, has announced it will not show the movie. ArcLight Cinemas, with five upscale movie theaters in Southern California and one in Bethesda, Maryland, also will not screen the movie. Other theater chains could follow.
The Guardians of Peace released emails by Sony executives which reveal that two high-ranking State Department officials, including ambassador Robert King, U.S. Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues, were shown a rough cut of the film and gave it their blessing, including the gruesome scene at the end.
The State Department’s approval of a film that ends with Kim Jong Un’s head exploding is just one more example of the Obama administration’s foreign policy failings. That anyone in the Obama administration would even consider giving their stamp of approval to this inflammatory farce befuddles a normal mind beyond the pale.
Now let me pose these questions: What if the movie had depicted the assassination of President Obama? Would that have been funny? Of course not … and it would have brought out Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton howling about a racist movie. What if the movie had depicted the assassination of German Chancellor Angela Merkel? Or of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? Would those have been funny? Of course not. As a matter of fact, a movie depicting the comedic assassination of Abdullah would have led to bloody riots and attacks on Americans and U.S. government facilities throughout the Muslim world.
Some movies are truly funny. The Interview may get a lot of laughs, but funny it is not! It’s nothing more than Hollywood trash that is in very bad taste. That’s my opinion.
UPDATE: AMC, Cinemark, Cineplex and Regal all announced Wednesday that they would not show The Interview. Those four theater chains, along with Carmike, operate more than 90 percent of this country’s multiplex cinemas. Sony followed by announcing that for now it would not release the film.
Kim Jong Un is not a likable guy. In fact, North Korea’s ‘Dear Leader’ is a despicable human being. And he is also a nuclear armed enemy of the United States.
The Interview is a Sony Pictures movie ‘comedy’ about a TV host and his producer who are recruited by the CIA to assassinate Kim Jong Un. At the end of the film, the Dear Leader’s head explodes. The movie is scheduled for release on December 25.
A hacker group calling itself the Guardians of Peace breached Sony’s company servers, thereby gaining access to emails between top executives and private information about Sony employees and the actors starring in its films. The group has threatened terrorist attacks on theaters showing The Interview.
The New York premiere planned for the Sunshine Cinema in Manhattan’s Lower East Side has been cancelled by Landmark Theaters. Carmike Cinemas, a theater chain with 278 theaters and 2,917 screens in 41 states, has announced it will not show the movie. ArcLight Cinemas, with five upscale movie theaters in Southern California and one in Bethesda, Maryland, also will not screen the movie. Other theater chains could follow.
The Guardians of Peace released emails by Sony executives which reveal that two high-ranking State Department officials, including ambassador Robert King, U.S. Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues, were shown a rough cut of the film and gave it their blessing, including the gruesome scene at the end.
The State Department’s approval of a film that ends with Kim Jong Un’s head exploding is just one more example of the Obama administration’s foreign policy failings. That anyone in the Obama administration would even consider giving their stamp of approval to this inflammatory farce befuddles a normal mind beyond the pale.
Now let me pose these questions: What if the movie had depicted the assassination of President Obama? Would that have been funny? Of course not … and it would have brought out Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton howling about a racist movie. What if the movie had depicted the assassination of German Chancellor Angela Merkel? Or of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? Would those have been funny? Of course not. As a matter of fact, a movie depicting the comedic assassination of Abdullah would have led to bloody riots and attacks on Americans and U.S. government facilities throughout the Muslim world.
Some movies are truly funny. The Interview may get a lot of laughs, but funny it is not! It’s nothing more than Hollywood trash that is in very bad taste. That’s my opinion.
UPDATE: AMC, Cinemark, Cineplex and Regal all announced Wednesday that they would not show The Interview. Those four theater chains, along with Carmike, operate more than 90 percent of this country’s multiplex cinemas. Sony followed by announcing that for now it would not release the film.
REESTABLISHING RELATIONS WITH CUBA
The time to end the trade embargo against Cuba and reestablish diplomatic relations with the Castro regime is long overdue
President Obama plans to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba after the Castro regime released American contractor Alan Gross and an unidentified American spy in exchange for three former Cuban spies imprisoned by the U.S. Obama ordered Secretary of State John Kerry to begin high-level discussions with the Cubans to reestablish a U.S. embassy in Havana and to ease some of the trade restrictions imposed during the Kennedy administration.
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro sealed the historic deal in a 45-minute telephone conversation Tuesday after 18 months of secret talks between the two governments. Canada's government hosted most of the talks, but they included a meeting arranged by Pope Francis, the first Latin American pontiff, at the Vatican in October.”
Obama’s plans were denounced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and other members of Congress. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) called Obama the “appeaser in chief.”
Total lifting of the trade embargo will require an act of Congress, something that is not likely to happen with a Republican majority in both houses.
I have been a longtime critic of Obama’s foreign policy, but I’m with the president on this move. The U.S. is the only country that does not trade with Cuba. Our trade embargo has not hurt the Castro regime. Instead, it probably strengthened Fidel and Raul Castro’s grip on the country. The embargo only hurt American businessmen and farmers, as well as the Cuban people.
As for those who point to Cuba’s dismal human rights record, let me point out that we have diplomatic relations with countries whose human rights records are far worse than those of the Cubans, starting with China. And some of our allies, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Indonesia, also have human rights records worse than Cuba’s.
We probably would have reestablished relations with Cuba long ago were it not for the vocal opposition of Cuban-Americans in Florida and other states. If we are going to reestablish diplomatic relations with Cuba it better happen while Obama is still in office because it ain’t about to happen under a Republican administration.
President Obama plans to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba after the Castro regime released American contractor Alan Gross and an unidentified American spy in exchange for three former Cuban spies imprisoned by the U.S. Obama ordered Secretary of State John Kerry to begin high-level discussions with the Cubans to reestablish a U.S. embassy in Havana and to ease some of the trade restrictions imposed during the Kennedy administration.
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro sealed the historic deal in a 45-minute telephone conversation Tuesday after 18 months of secret talks between the two governments. Canada's government hosted most of the talks, but they included a meeting arranged by Pope Francis, the first Latin American pontiff, at the Vatican in October.”
Obama’s plans were denounced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and other members of Congress. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) called Obama the “appeaser in chief.”
Total lifting of the trade embargo will require an act of Congress, something that is not likely to happen with a Republican majority in both houses.
I have been a longtime critic of Obama’s foreign policy, but I’m with the president on this move. The U.S. is the only country that does not trade with Cuba. Our trade embargo has not hurt the Castro regime. Instead, it probably strengthened Fidel and Raul Castro’s grip on the country. The embargo only hurt American businessmen and farmers, as well as the Cuban people.
As for those who point to Cuba’s dismal human rights record, let me point out that we have diplomatic relations with countries whose human rights records are far worse than those of the Cubans, starting with China. And some of our allies, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Indonesia, also have human rights records worse than Cuba’s.
We probably would have reestablished relations with Cuba long ago were it not for the vocal opposition of Cuban-Americans in Florida and other states. If we are going to reestablish diplomatic relations with Cuba it better happen while Obama is still in office because it ain’t about to happen under a Republican administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)