The Republican Party likes to bill itself as the party of ‘family values.’ The Republican National Committee has approved some eyebrow-raising expenditures on luxury hotels and private jets. Most notable was an entertainment expense of $1,946.25 at Voyeur West Hollywood, a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex.
As David Letterman quipped: NOW THERE’S A STIMULUS PACKAGE.
Almost $2,000 spent for entertainment at a topless club featuring some hot chicks simulating lesbian S&M sex acts? Simulated S&M sex entertainment for the party of family values? What a bunch of phonies!
Now you can see why I’m not a Republican. And because the Democrats are just as phony, I’m not a Democrat either. A plague on both their parties. What we need in this country is a real viable third party, and I don’t mean the Tea Party either.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
'BREAKING IN' AIN'T TOO COOL
A couple of items in the news has me rolling in the aisle.
First there was well-known actor Rip Torn. Seems like he got rip-roaring drunk last January and, late at night, broke into a Connecticut bank, thinking that it was his home. He was charged with criminal trespass, burglary and criminal mischief. And because poor old Rip had a gun on his person when the cops found him, he was also charged with carrying a gun without a permit and carrying a gun while intoxicated.
Now it is not at all that uncommon for a drunk neighbor to break into the house next door, believing it to be his own home. But breaking into a bank thinking it was a home – well, poor old Rip must have boozed it up to the point where he got totally wasted.
Then there was the jerk of a driver in a suburb of Cleveland who, early Monday, fled from police officers trying to stop him for a traffic violation. The ensuing police chase went through four communities and at times reached speeds of 90 mph. Finally, the driver stopped and, together with his three passengers, bailed out of the car. He and one of his buddies ran toward a large fence. His buddy got busted before he could scale the fence, but the driver managed to climb over the fence only to land inside the yard of the Ohio women’s prison.
After the driver was arrested, he had to taken to a hospital to be treated for a number of serious cuts he got while slithering over the concertina razor wire at the top of the prison’s fence. The other two passengers were also arrested.
First there was well-known actor Rip Torn. Seems like he got rip-roaring drunk last January and, late at night, broke into a Connecticut bank, thinking that it was his home. He was charged with criminal trespass, burglary and criminal mischief. And because poor old Rip had a gun on his person when the cops found him, he was also charged with carrying a gun without a permit and carrying a gun while intoxicated.
Now it is not at all that uncommon for a drunk neighbor to break into the house next door, believing it to be his own home. But breaking into a bank thinking it was a home – well, poor old Rip must have boozed it up to the point where he got totally wasted.
Then there was the jerk of a driver in a suburb of Cleveland who, early Monday, fled from police officers trying to stop him for a traffic violation. The ensuing police chase went through four communities and at times reached speeds of 90 mph. Finally, the driver stopped and, together with his three passengers, bailed out of the car. He and one of his buddies ran toward a large fence. His buddy got busted before he could scale the fence, but the driver managed to climb over the fence only to land inside the yard of the Ohio women’s prison.
After the driver was arrested, he had to taken to a hospital to be treated for a number of serious cuts he got while slithering over the concertina razor wire at the top of the prison’s fence. The other two passengers were also arrested.
LESS SAFE, THANKS TO THE CENSUS
CRIMINAL-BACKGROUND CHECKS DELAYED DUE TO CENSUS
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
March 30, 2010
As if that damn census wasn't so bad already, what with their nonsensical questions and such, now comes word that the Texas Department of Public Safety is going to have to put on hold criminal-background checks because of it.
The FBI is going to be so busy doing fingerprint checks on 484,000 prospective census workers that the checks DPS runs through them will have to be delayed, DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange says.
On the one hand, checks involving criminal-justice matters will still go through as normal, she says. On the other hand, checks for handgun licenses won't. So if you want to protect your home and castle against the murdering hordes, or just walk into a Starbucks packing heat, you're going to have to wait even longer to do so.
"We will do everything that we can to process the background checks here in Texas in a timely manner as soon as the FBI begins accepting fingerprinting requests again," said Steven C. McCraw, director of the DPS. "We are working with the FBI to ensure that the process works as smoothly as possible."
Also affected will be people applying for some state jobs or other employment that requires such checks.
DPS normally processes 35,000 federal background checks a week, Mange says.
And Texas is not alone, so the backlog that grows will be 50-states' worth large:
Any background check that also requires a national criminal history status will be processed in the state system and then will be queued for submission to the FBI. Once the FBI returns to service, DPS will submit these records to the FBI to complete the national check.
Because DPS is following this FBI requested queuing procedure, the Texas checks will be among the first that will be processed by the FBI. However, processing delays should be expected in the days following the shut-down, as the FBI will be processing the backlog of submissions from all 50 states and other federal agencies that accumulated during the period of non-service.
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
March 30, 2010
As if that damn census wasn't so bad already, what with their nonsensical questions and such, now comes word that the Texas Department of Public Safety is going to have to put on hold criminal-background checks because of it.
The FBI is going to be so busy doing fingerprint checks on 484,000 prospective census workers that the checks DPS runs through them will have to be delayed, DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange says.
On the one hand, checks involving criminal-justice matters will still go through as normal, she says. On the other hand, checks for handgun licenses won't. So if you want to protect your home and castle against the murdering hordes, or just walk into a Starbucks packing heat, you're going to have to wait even longer to do so.
"We will do everything that we can to process the background checks here in Texas in a timely manner as soon as the FBI begins accepting fingerprinting requests again," said Steven C. McCraw, director of the DPS. "We are working with the FBI to ensure that the process works as smoothly as possible."
Also affected will be people applying for some state jobs or other employment that requires such checks.
DPS normally processes 35,000 federal background checks a week, Mange says.
And Texas is not alone, so the backlog that grows will be 50-states' worth large:
Any background check that also requires a national criminal history status will be processed in the state system and then will be queued for submission to the FBI. Once the FBI returns to service, DPS will submit these records to the FBI to complete the national check.
Because DPS is following this FBI requested queuing procedure, the Texas checks will be among the first that will be processed by the FBI. However, processing delays should be expected in the days following the shut-down, as the FBI will be processing the backlog of submissions from all 50 states and other federal agencies that accumulated during the period of non-service.
AN ALLEGED COMMENTARY BY A WRITER SUSPECT TO BE READ BY A PERSON OF INTEREST
Breaking alleged news: Police have allegedly said that the alleged suspect who was allegedly caught in the alleged act of allegedly robbing an alleged bank is allegedly a person of interest. The alleged suspect has allegedly retained an alleged top-notch liar to allegedly represent him before the alleged judge during the alleged arraignment. His alleged liar allegedly alleged that his alleged client was the alleged victim of alleged childhood abuse because allegedly his alleged rabbi allegedly circumcised him.
CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY, AN ALLEGED LAWYER MAY BE LISTENING
The Way I See It
By Breck Porter
The Police News
March 30, 2010
COMMENTARY
I continue to be amazed at the overuse by the so-called mainstream medias use of the terms SUSPECT and ALLEDGED. It seems they just sprinkled them throughout stories as a precautionary measure 'just in case' the story turns around and bites them.
I read a story the other day that took place in Houston. Two men robbed a convenience store. As they ran from the store, guns in hand, a pair of police officers routinely checking the store, just happened to pull into the parking lot. The robbers, seeing the officers right there in front of them, pointed a pistol at them. One of the officers fired and killed the gun weilding robber.
So how did the story on one of the big city TV stations go? Like this: A police officer 'allegedly' shot a robbery 'suspect' running from a convenience store he had 'allegedly' robbed moments before.
Tell me now. Is there some doubt the officer shot the guy? What do they mean, the officer 'allegedly' shot him? Hell, he's dead, right there in the parking lot and the cop said he shot him. That's not an allegation, it's a fact.
Suspect? How was he a suspect? The clerk said the man robbed him. The cops saw him run from the store with a gun in his hand and point it at them. They shot him. The dead robber's partner was captured and admitted they robbed the store. Why is he referred to as a 'suspect' instead of a robber or a gunman or a bandit or crook or something, why a suspect? He is NOT suspected of anything.
Here's how we could write a story about this:
An alleged Houston TV station is suspected of reporting today that two suspects allegedly robbed a suspected convenience store. As the suspects ran from the alleged convenience store, suspected TV cameras were rolling and caught the action on video. One of the suspected cops who saw the suspects run from the alleged store, reportedly drew his pistol and shot one of the alleged suspects. The suspect allegedly died from the hail of gunfire from the guys in blue uniforms, reported by some witnesses to be police officers who saw the word POLICE on the side of the car they allegedly arrived on the scene in.
And so it goes. Next time you read a story about police or crime or any controversial issue, see how many times you find these filler words the media uses just in case that alledged dead suspect decides to sue them for libel or slander.
That's the way I see it.
How about you?
CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY, AN ALLEGED LAWYER MAY BE LISTENING
The Way I See It
By Breck Porter
The Police News
March 30, 2010
COMMENTARY
I continue to be amazed at the overuse by the so-called mainstream medias use of the terms SUSPECT and ALLEDGED. It seems they just sprinkled them throughout stories as a precautionary measure 'just in case' the story turns around and bites them.
I read a story the other day that took place in Houston. Two men robbed a convenience store. As they ran from the store, guns in hand, a pair of police officers routinely checking the store, just happened to pull into the parking lot. The robbers, seeing the officers right there in front of them, pointed a pistol at them. One of the officers fired and killed the gun weilding robber.
So how did the story on one of the big city TV stations go? Like this: A police officer 'allegedly' shot a robbery 'suspect' running from a convenience store he had 'allegedly' robbed moments before.
Tell me now. Is there some doubt the officer shot the guy? What do they mean, the officer 'allegedly' shot him? Hell, he's dead, right there in the parking lot and the cop said he shot him. That's not an allegation, it's a fact.
Suspect? How was he a suspect? The clerk said the man robbed him. The cops saw him run from the store with a gun in his hand and point it at them. They shot him. The dead robber's partner was captured and admitted they robbed the store. Why is he referred to as a 'suspect' instead of a robber or a gunman or a bandit or crook or something, why a suspect? He is NOT suspected of anything.
Here's how we could write a story about this:
An alleged Houston TV station is suspected of reporting today that two suspects allegedly robbed a suspected convenience store. As the suspects ran from the alleged convenience store, suspected TV cameras were rolling and caught the action on video. One of the suspected cops who saw the suspects run from the alleged store, reportedly drew his pistol and shot one of the alleged suspects. The suspect allegedly died from the hail of gunfire from the guys in blue uniforms, reported by some witnesses to be police officers who saw the word POLICE on the side of the car they allegedly arrived on the scene in.
And so it goes. Next time you read a story about police or crime or any controversial issue, see how many times you find these filler words the media uses just in case that alledged dead suspect decides to sue them for libel or slander.
That's the way I see it.
How about you?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
FINALLY A FORM THAT WAS NOT DESIGNED BY LAWYERS
WHY TEXANS ARE SO BAD ABOUT FILLING OUT THEIR CENSUS FORMS
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
March 29, 2010
The Texas Tribune reports that our state is among the worst so far when it comes to filling out census forms. Only about 25 percent of Texans have done so, and the only places that have done even less are New York, Alaska, and the magic southern trio of Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
This is distressing to Texas politicians, because if the population is properly counted there may be perhaps four additional members of Congress in the House of Reps. And just about anyone who's studied the problem of modern politics has come to the conclusion that what is missing in our public discourse is more members of Congress from Texas.
Why are we so bad at filling out the 10-question form?
Let's just take a look at those questions.
1. How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment or mobile home on April 1, 2010?
We're getting criticized for not answering this one yet? What ever happened to scientific research and dedication to getting it right? Seems to us perfectly reasonable to wait until Thursday and see if Cousin Luther moves back in to the double-wide with that beautician strumpet of his, and then we'll fill out yer damn form.
2. Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?
Gee, thanks for the trust in our mental faculties, Uncle Sam. Question 1: How many people live here. Question 2: How many other people live here? Oh, we didn't think that "people" meant "other people," sorry. We're still waiting for April 1 to answer this one, though. Luther just called to "catch up a bit," and that's never a good sign.
3. Is this house, apartment or mobile home....
This says to mark just one of the following options:
1. Owned by you or someone in this household with a mortgage or loan?
2. Owned by you or someone in this household free and clear?
3. Rented?
4. Occupied without payment of rent?
Now, seems to us our mobile home could be both "rented," or any one of the first three, and also "Occupied without payment of rent." We refer, in the latter case, to Luther, who -- it looks like -- will damn well be occupying without paying any dadgum rent. Again.
4. What is your telephone number?
Look, we already regret giving it to Luther. We ain't about to hand it over to you.
5. [This question tells you to write the name of anyone in the house, to be called "Person 1."]
6. What is Person 1's sex?
We fully intended to answer this, but then you had to go and add "Mark ONE box," referring to male or female. We felt insulted, frankly, so we're going to sulk awhile before answering.
7. What is Person 1's age and Person's 1 date of birth? Please report babies as 0 when the child is less than 1 year old.
Zero? You calling my kid a zero? Plus, here in Texas we count age from the moment of conception, and your guidelines don't make it clear whether you do, too. Until that little matter is cleared up, no answer. Next.
8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?
Easy. HELL NO. Unless you count Luther's latest rugrat, and we're not saying it couldn't be "half" one of those things.
9. What is Person 1's race? Mark one or more boxes.
We'll mark "White." Then we'd mark "And damn proud of it," if you liberal wussies offered that option.
10. Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay anywhere else?
No. Person 1 is a depressed, agoraphobic shut-in who NEVER has stayed "anywhere else." Not even "sometimes." We do give you points, though, for offering "in jail or prison" as one of the options.
Luther appreciates it.
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
March 29, 2010
The Texas Tribune reports that our state is among the worst so far when it comes to filling out census forms. Only about 25 percent of Texans have done so, and the only places that have done even less are New York, Alaska, and the magic southern trio of Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
This is distressing to Texas politicians, because if the population is properly counted there may be perhaps four additional members of Congress in the House of Reps. And just about anyone who's studied the problem of modern politics has come to the conclusion that what is missing in our public discourse is more members of Congress from Texas.
Why are we so bad at filling out the 10-question form?
Let's just take a look at those questions.
1. How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment or mobile home on April 1, 2010?
We're getting criticized for not answering this one yet? What ever happened to scientific research and dedication to getting it right? Seems to us perfectly reasonable to wait until Thursday and see if Cousin Luther moves back in to the double-wide with that beautician strumpet of his, and then we'll fill out yer damn form.
2. Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?
Gee, thanks for the trust in our mental faculties, Uncle Sam. Question 1: How many people live here. Question 2: How many other people live here? Oh, we didn't think that "people" meant "other people," sorry. We're still waiting for April 1 to answer this one, though. Luther just called to "catch up a bit," and that's never a good sign.
3. Is this house, apartment or mobile home....
This says to mark just one of the following options:
1. Owned by you or someone in this household with a mortgage or loan?
2. Owned by you or someone in this household free and clear?
3. Rented?
4. Occupied without payment of rent?
Now, seems to us our mobile home could be both "rented," or any one of the first three, and also "Occupied without payment of rent." We refer, in the latter case, to Luther, who -- it looks like -- will damn well be occupying without paying any dadgum rent. Again.
4. What is your telephone number?
Look, we already regret giving it to Luther. We ain't about to hand it over to you.
5. [This question tells you to write the name of anyone in the house, to be called "Person 1."]
6. What is Person 1's sex?
We fully intended to answer this, but then you had to go and add "Mark ONE box," referring to male or female. We felt insulted, frankly, so we're going to sulk awhile before answering.
7. What is Person 1's age and Person's 1 date of birth? Please report babies as 0 when the child is less than 1 year old.
Zero? You calling my kid a zero? Plus, here in Texas we count age from the moment of conception, and your guidelines don't make it clear whether you do, too. Until that little matter is cleared up, no answer. Next.
8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?
Easy. HELL NO. Unless you count Luther's latest rugrat, and we're not saying it couldn't be "half" one of those things.
9. What is Person 1's race? Mark one or more boxes.
We'll mark "White." Then we'd mark "And damn proud of it," if you liberal wussies offered that option.
10. Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay anywhere else?
No. Person 1 is a depressed, agoraphobic shut-in who NEVER has stayed "anywhere else." Not even "sometimes." We do give you points, though, for offering "in jail or prison" as one of the options.
Luther appreciates it.
DON'T GET BLOWN AFTER MIDNIGHT
OLD MAN INTERRUPTS LOVERS IN HIS GARAGE; ENDS UP IN JAIL
By John Nova Lomax
Houston Press
March 30, 2010
It's like a modern-day Texas version of one of the Canterbury Tales...Old men cling to younger women at their own peril.
Septuagenarian William Moore awoke in the wee hours of Saturday morning to the sounds of a commotion in the garage of his northeast San Antonio home.
Upon investigating, he discovered that the tenant he allowed to stay in there -- an unidentified woman -- had broken one of their mutually-agreed upon house rules.
Namely, she was entertaining a guest -- 38-year-old Todd Harrison -- after her cut-off time of midnight. And by "entertaining," we mean blowing him.
These extracurricular post-curfew shenanigans didn't sit well with Moore, and who could blame him? There's little more bothersome than a noisy roommate.
He told Harrison to get lost, and returned to his bedroom to fetch some emphatic persuasion in the form of his long-barreled shotgun.
A scuffle between the female tenant and Moore ensued, during which the shotgun went off, peppering Harrison's hand with birdshot. He has since been treated and released from the hospital.
On the other, um, hand, Moore hasn't fared so well. He was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and spent his 72nd birthday Sunday in Bexar County jail, awaiting someone to pay his $50,000 bail.
Now, if you will allow Hair Balls to editorialize for a second...
Is this the Texas Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie fought and died for at the Alamo?
One where you can't shoot a man who has the nerve to get a hummer in your garage from your "tenant," and then whoop and holler so loud in the process he rousts you from your slumber on the day before your 72nd birthday?
We'd expect that kind of candy-ass law enforcement from the cops in California, not Texas.
Surely there's some kind of provision in the castle doctrine allowing for a shooting like this. After all, if a man -- or woman -- is supposed to allow all kinds of sleep-interrupting, unauthorized oral sex capers to go on at all hours in their castle, how can they be said to be the king or queen?
By John Nova Lomax
Houston Press
March 30, 2010
It's like a modern-day Texas version of one of the Canterbury Tales...Old men cling to younger women at their own peril.
Septuagenarian William Moore awoke in the wee hours of Saturday morning to the sounds of a commotion in the garage of his northeast San Antonio home.
Upon investigating, he discovered that the tenant he allowed to stay in there -- an unidentified woman -- had broken one of their mutually-agreed upon house rules.
Namely, she was entertaining a guest -- 38-year-old Todd Harrison -- after her cut-off time of midnight. And by "entertaining," we mean blowing him.
These extracurricular post-curfew shenanigans didn't sit well with Moore, and who could blame him? There's little more bothersome than a noisy roommate.
He told Harrison to get lost, and returned to his bedroom to fetch some emphatic persuasion in the form of his long-barreled shotgun.
A scuffle between the female tenant and Moore ensued, during which the shotgun went off, peppering Harrison's hand with birdshot. He has since been treated and released from the hospital.
On the other, um, hand, Moore hasn't fared so well. He was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and spent his 72nd birthday Sunday in Bexar County jail, awaiting someone to pay his $50,000 bail.
Now, if you will allow Hair Balls to editorialize for a second...
Is this the Texas Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie fought and died for at the Alamo?
One where you can't shoot a man who has the nerve to get a hummer in your garage from your "tenant," and then whoop and holler so loud in the process he rousts you from your slumber on the day before your 72nd birthday?
We'd expect that kind of candy-ass law enforcement from the cops in California, not Texas.
Surely there's some kind of provision in the castle doctrine allowing for a shooting like this. After all, if a man -- or woman -- is supposed to allow all kinds of sleep-interrupting, unauthorized oral sex capers to go on at all hours in their castle, how can they be said to be the king or queen?
WERE THOSE 42 SHOTS JUSTIFIED?
Whenever police officers are involved in a shooting that results in injury or death to an innocent person they are subjected to a lot of criticism and second guessing by civil libertarians, couch slouches and members of the median, none of whom witnessed the incident. Such is the case with the five Jacksonville, Florida officers who killed a carjacking bank robber, but also wounded a mother and critically wounded her 2-year-old son.
If you listened to the TV newscasters, you would probably conclude that five cops participated in a reckless shooting frenzy, firing 42 shots at the bank robber who was fleeing in a car he had just carjacked, abducting the mother and two children in the process. Well, that’s not exactly how it went down. For starters, the first officer at the scene of the bank robbery fired at the suspect just before the carjacking occurred. So the officers knew for sure they were dealing with an armed robber who exited a bank with gun-in-hand, not just a robbery suspect.
Before casting judgement on the officers, one would have to know exactly what went down. Did the officers even know that the mother and the children were inside the car? If they knew, what were the factors that led them to shoot at the car? Did their department have a clear-cut or a fuzzy policy in place concerning when they could and could not fire at a moving vehicle?
Did the 42 shots fired constitute a criminal act? Most certainly not! In the end it may be that the officers used poor judgement by firing at a moving car, especially if they were aware that the mother and children were inside. It may be that they lacked the self-discipline called for in such situations. And they may have violated one or more of their department’s policies. But until all the facts are known, we shouldn’t rush to judgement by condemning a bunch of cops who found themselves in a stressful situation.
JACKSONVILLE SHERIFF GIVES MORE DETAILS OF SHOOTING ON BAYMEADOWS ROAD
Toddler shot still critical
By Charles Broward
Jacksonville.com
March 27, 2010
When they fired more than three dozen times at a commandeered car, did Jacksonville police officers know it contained an innocent woman and two children?
Their decision Friday was split-second, but questions after a toddler and his mother were shot in a hail of police gunfire lingered a day later - and may for some time.
In a Saturday press conference, Jacksonville Sheriff John Rutherford had few solid conclusions about the complex sequence of events that played out Friday afternoon at a suburban commercial strip.
Five officers fired a total of 42 rounds in the police-involved shooting on Baymeadows Road. Those bullets killed a bank robbery and carjacking suspect, and sent the woman and her son to Shands Jacksonville, the boy near death. He remained in critical condition late Saturday.
"We had a very volatile situation," Rutherford said. "I just don't want to try to speculate on why they felt the need to shoot at the suspect while he was in the vehicle."
None of the officers have been formally interviewed yet, Rutherford said. There will be at least two investigations, one criminal, and after that, an administrative inquiry.
The boy's family is asking how a police use of force to stop a bank robbery and carjacking suspect could end so tragically.
The boy, identified as Daniel Crichton, was hit by bullets in his arm and upper torso. The sheriff said it is uncertain how long the toddler's status will remain critical.
The boy's mother, Joann Cooper, 35, was driving when her car was commandeered by the suspect after he fled the bank robbery. Cooper was hit in her foot by shots fired from the officers and is also recovering at Shands Jacksonville. Alexis Cooper, 7, her stepdaughter, was in the car but unharmed during the shooting.
Rutherford would not speculate on the exact conditions that prompted the officers to shoot. The car was hit at least 15 times in the windshield, hood and passenger and driver's side windows.
"If the officers felt that they had a opportunity to end it without endangering the carjack victims, then I think it was wise that they would try to do that, if they could do that safely," Rutherford said. "And I don't know the answer to all that yet."
Rutherford said he doesn't yet have all the information about the sequence of events or whether the firing officers knew that the woman and two children were in the car.
"We don't know what they saw. That's part of the problem," Rutherford said.
Cooper and the two children were in a car at the Wendy's drive-through on Friday afternoon when the suspect, whose identity has not yet been released, ran from a bank he had just robbed and carjacked the car by pushing Joann Cooper into the passenger seat of the Nissan she was driving, police said. One officer shot at the suspect just before he got into the car.
As the suspect drove onto Baymeadows Road, four more officers working in teams of two shot at him until the car came to rest in the middle of the road and the suspect was dead.
The officers involved were both veterans and new to the force. Four were on duty and one was off duty.
They were: Lt. J.E. York, a 22-year employee; Officer J.E. Lederman, a 13-year employee; Officer R.C. Santoro, an 11-year employee; Officer R. Black, a 2 1/2-year employee; and recruit D. Griffith, in field training and employed for a year.
It was the first officer-involved shooting for all but York, for whom it was the first officer-involved shooting where a suspect was shot.
Rutherford said the department had not yet been able to reach the suspect's next of kin. The gunman did not discharge his gun, a .357 revolver he was armed with when he entered the Wachovia bank about 3 p.m. and committed a takeover-style robbery, police said.
An expert interviewed Saturday by the Times-Union called such circumstances extremely rare and a "worst-case scenario."That makes training for such a situation virtually impossible, said Thomas J. Aveni, executive director of The Police Policy Studies Council. The presence of innocent bystanders in such close proximity to an armed suspect could either keep an officer from shooting to avoid hurting the bystander - or make him more likely to shoot to protect them.
It seems unlikely that stop sticks - spiked strips that officers can lay over a road to puncture a car's tires - would have been a possibility. They take time to set up, and typically are deployed a mile in advance or more, Aveni said.
"It takes quite a bit of time and directional knowledge," he said.
Aveni said that nationally, many police departments are taking stronger steps to restrict when officers can shoot into or at moving vehicles. The main reason? Accuracy. A car moving at 20 miles per hour is equivalent to 30 feet per second.
"Officers tend to miss significant number of rounds when firing at human beings on foot," he said.
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office policy prohibits officers from firing at a moving vehicle with these exceptions:
- as a last resort to prevent death or great bodily harm to the officer or another person
- as a last resort to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon who would pose imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and
- when authorized by a watch commander or higher authority.
If you listened to the TV newscasters, you would probably conclude that five cops participated in a reckless shooting frenzy, firing 42 shots at the bank robber who was fleeing in a car he had just carjacked, abducting the mother and two children in the process. Well, that’s not exactly how it went down. For starters, the first officer at the scene of the bank robbery fired at the suspect just before the carjacking occurred. So the officers knew for sure they were dealing with an armed robber who exited a bank with gun-in-hand, not just a robbery suspect.
Before casting judgement on the officers, one would have to know exactly what went down. Did the officers even know that the mother and the children were inside the car? If they knew, what were the factors that led them to shoot at the car? Did their department have a clear-cut or a fuzzy policy in place concerning when they could and could not fire at a moving vehicle?
Did the 42 shots fired constitute a criminal act? Most certainly not! In the end it may be that the officers used poor judgement by firing at a moving car, especially if they were aware that the mother and children were inside. It may be that they lacked the self-discipline called for in such situations. And they may have violated one or more of their department’s policies. But until all the facts are known, we shouldn’t rush to judgement by condemning a bunch of cops who found themselves in a stressful situation.
JACKSONVILLE SHERIFF GIVES MORE DETAILS OF SHOOTING ON BAYMEADOWS ROAD
Toddler shot still critical
By Charles Broward
Jacksonville.com
March 27, 2010
When they fired more than three dozen times at a commandeered car, did Jacksonville police officers know it contained an innocent woman and two children?
Their decision Friday was split-second, but questions after a toddler and his mother were shot in a hail of police gunfire lingered a day later - and may for some time.
In a Saturday press conference, Jacksonville Sheriff John Rutherford had few solid conclusions about the complex sequence of events that played out Friday afternoon at a suburban commercial strip.
Five officers fired a total of 42 rounds in the police-involved shooting on Baymeadows Road. Those bullets killed a bank robbery and carjacking suspect, and sent the woman and her son to Shands Jacksonville, the boy near death. He remained in critical condition late Saturday.
"We had a very volatile situation," Rutherford said. "I just don't want to try to speculate on why they felt the need to shoot at the suspect while he was in the vehicle."
None of the officers have been formally interviewed yet, Rutherford said. There will be at least two investigations, one criminal, and after that, an administrative inquiry.
The boy's family is asking how a police use of force to stop a bank robbery and carjacking suspect could end so tragically.
The boy, identified as Daniel Crichton, was hit by bullets in his arm and upper torso. The sheriff said it is uncertain how long the toddler's status will remain critical.
The boy's mother, Joann Cooper, 35, was driving when her car was commandeered by the suspect after he fled the bank robbery. Cooper was hit in her foot by shots fired from the officers and is also recovering at Shands Jacksonville. Alexis Cooper, 7, her stepdaughter, was in the car but unharmed during the shooting.
Rutherford would not speculate on the exact conditions that prompted the officers to shoot. The car was hit at least 15 times in the windshield, hood and passenger and driver's side windows.
"If the officers felt that they had a opportunity to end it without endangering the carjack victims, then I think it was wise that they would try to do that, if they could do that safely," Rutherford said. "And I don't know the answer to all that yet."
Rutherford said he doesn't yet have all the information about the sequence of events or whether the firing officers knew that the woman and two children were in the car.
"We don't know what they saw. That's part of the problem," Rutherford said.
Cooper and the two children were in a car at the Wendy's drive-through on Friday afternoon when the suspect, whose identity has not yet been released, ran from a bank he had just robbed and carjacked the car by pushing Joann Cooper into the passenger seat of the Nissan she was driving, police said. One officer shot at the suspect just before he got into the car.
As the suspect drove onto Baymeadows Road, four more officers working in teams of two shot at him until the car came to rest in the middle of the road and the suspect was dead.
The officers involved were both veterans and new to the force. Four were on duty and one was off duty.
They were: Lt. J.E. York, a 22-year employee; Officer J.E. Lederman, a 13-year employee; Officer R.C. Santoro, an 11-year employee; Officer R. Black, a 2 1/2-year employee; and recruit D. Griffith, in field training and employed for a year.
It was the first officer-involved shooting for all but York, for whom it was the first officer-involved shooting where a suspect was shot.
Rutherford said the department had not yet been able to reach the suspect's next of kin. The gunman did not discharge his gun, a .357 revolver he was armed with when he entered the Wachovia bank about 3 p.m. and committed a takeover-style robbery, police said.
An expert interviewed Saturday by the Times-Union called such circumstances extremely rare and a "worst-case scenario."That makes training for such a situation virtually impossible, said Thomas J. Aveni, executive director of The Police Policy Studies Council. The presence of innocent bystanders in such close proximity to an armed suspect could either keep an officer from shooting to avoid hurting the bystander - or make him more likely to shoot to protect them.
It seems unlikely that stop sticks - spiked strips that officers can lay over a road to puncture a car's tires - would have been a possibility. They take time to set up, and typically are deployed a mile in advance or more, Aveni said.
"It takes quite a bit of time and directional knowledge," he said.
Aveni said that nationally, many police departments are taking stronger steps to restrict when officers can shoot into or at moving vehicles. The main reason? Accuracy. A car moving at 20 miles per hour is equivalent to 30 feet per second.
"Officers tend to miss significant number of rounds when firing at human beings on foot," he said.
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office policy prohibits officers from firing at a moving vehicle with these exceptions:
- as a last resort to prevent death or great bodily harm to the officer or another person
- as a last resort to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon who would pose imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and
- when authorized by a watch commander or higher authority.
Monday, March 29, 2010
LAW OF THE LAND
When yesterday’s round table discussion on ABC News This Week turned to the rift between the U.S. and Israel, George Will said:
“U.S.-Israeli relations are worse now than they have been in the 62 years that Israel has existed. It's the only nation in the world with which we have worse relations. What nation is that? It's the only democracy in the Middle East, the only salient of our values in that inhospitable region, the only reliable ally there. And we are treating it as a problem because the Jews in a Jewish section of Jerusalem have decided to build 1,600 housing units.
It is the law of the land, expressed in the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, that Jerusalem shall be the united capital of the state of Israel, PERIOD.”
When the ZOA slammed Hillary Clinton (CLINTON IS AS BIG A LIAR AS OBAMA [3-28-10]) for doing a 180 degree turn on her support for an “undivided Jerusalem” as Israel’s capital when she campaigned for and served in the U.S. Senate, it wrote:
"Your shocking words about Israel building in east Jerusalem is especially perplexing in light of the fact that you have ignored Congress passing the 'Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995' by a margin of 93 to 5 in the U.S. Senate and 347 to 37 in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Act which is U.S. Law stated:
(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city.
(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the state of Israel.”
My question is: WHAT PART OF THAT LAW DO OBAMA AND CLINTON NOT UNDERSTAND?
“U.S.-Israeli relations are worse now than they have been in the 62 years that Israel has existed. It's the only nation in the world with which we have worse relations. What nation is that? It's the only democracy in the Middle East, the only salient of our values in that inhospitable region, the only reliable ally there. And we are treating it as a problem because the Jews in a Jewish section of Jerusalem have decided to build 1,600 housing units.
It is the law of the land, expressed in the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, that Jerusalem shall be the united capital of the state of Israel, PERIOD.”
When the ZOA slammed Hillary Clinton (CLINTON IS AS BIG A LIAR AS OBAMA [3-28-10]) for doing a 180 degree turn on her support for an “undivided Jerusalem” as Israel’s capital when she campaigned for and served in the U.S. Senate, it wrote:
"Your shocking words about Israel building in east Jerusalem is especially perplexing in light of the fact that you have ignored Congress passing the 'Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995' by a margin of 93 to 5 in the U.S. Senate and 347 to 37 in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Act which is U.S. Law stated:
(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city.
(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the state of Israel.”
My question is: WHAT PART OF THAT LAW DO OBAMA AND CLINTON NOT UNDERSTAND?
Sunday, March 28, 2010
CLINTON IS AS BIG A LIAR AS OBAMA
Hillary, like Obama, speaks with forked tongue.
ZOA: CLINTON OWES NEW YORKERS AN APOLOGY
by David Lev
IsraelNationalNews.com
March 28, 2010
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has written to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her "to apologize to your former New York constituents (when you were their Senator) for having misled them by falsely claiming to support an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital." The letter was signed by Morton A. Klein, President of ZOA; Dr. Michael Goldblatt, Chairman, National Board; Dr. Alan Mazurek, Chair, Executive Committee and Steven Goldberg, Esq., Vice-Chairman, National Board.
The letter went on to say, "when you were New York's Senator from 2001 to 2009, you repeatedly stated in speeches and in a September 2007 position paper that you believed 'Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, must never be questioned.' Your spokesperson, Jim Chon, even said, 'this paper is a reflection of her consistent policy.that hasn't changed.'"
"Madame Secretary, you also signed the June 2004 Senate Resolution endorsing President Bush's letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that supported Israel 'retaining major Israeli population centers' in Judea and Samaria in any final peace agreement.'"
"We make this demand following your passionate and heartfelt condemnation of Israel for announcing the construction of Jewish homes in a Jewish neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem by stating that Jews building and moving there 'is an insult to America.' The only reasonable interpretation of this policy is that it is a first step toward dividing Jerusalem."
"Your shocking words about Israel building in east Jerusalem is especially perplexing in light of the fact that you have ignored Congress passing the 'Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995' by a margin of 93 to 5 in the U.S. Senate and 347 to 37 in the U.S. House of Representatives.”
"The Act which is U.S. Law stated:
(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city.
(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the state of Israel.”
ZOA: CLINTON OWES NEW YORKERS AN APOLOGY
by David Lev
IsraelNationalNews.com
March 28, 2010
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has written to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her "to apologize to your former New York constituents (when you were their Senator) for having misled them by falsely claiming to support an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital." The letter was signed by Morton A. Klein, President of ZOA; Dr. Michael Goldblatt, Chairman, National Board; Dr. Alan Mazurek, Chair, Executive Committee and Steven Goldberg, Esq., Vice-Chairman, National Board.
The letter went on to say, "when you were New York's Senator from 2001 to 2009, you repeatedly stated in speeches and in a September 2007 position paper that you believed 'Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, must never be questioned.' Your spokesperson, Jim Chon, even said, 'this paper is a reflection of her consistent policy.that hasn't changed.'"
"Madame Secretary, you also signed the June 2004 Senate Resolution endorsing President Bush's letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that supported Israel 'retaining major Israeli population centers' in Judea and Samaria in any final peace agreement.'"
"We make this demand following your passionate and heartfelt condemnation of Israel for announcing the construction of Jewish homes in a Jewish neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem by stating that Jews building and moving there 'is an insult to America.' The only reasonable interpretation of this policy is that it is a first step toward dividing Jerusalem."
"Your shocking words about Israel building in east Jerusalem is especially perplexing in light of the fact that you have ignored Congress passing the 'Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995' by a margin of 93 to 5 in the U.S. Senate and 347 to 37 in the U.S. House of Representatives.”
"The Act which is U.S. Law stated:
(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city.
(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the state of Israel.”
DRIVING WHILE DRUGGED
For the past 30 years, police and highway safety officials have focused on alcohol-related auto fatalities. But little research has been done into how many wrecks are caused by drivers intoxicated by drugs, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states in a report released last July.
The Highway administration conducted its first survey of drug use among random drivers and found 11 percent of drivers tested positive for drug use during the day and 14 percent tested positive for drug use at night.
The same survey found 2.2 percent of the drivers surveyed at night during weekends were over the legal limit for alcohol use.
The Highway administration conducted its first survey of drug use among random drivers and found 11 percent of drivers tested positive for drug use during the day and 14 percent tested positive for drug use at night.
The same survey found 2.2 percent of the drivers surveyed at night during weekends were over the legal limit for alcohol use.
WORDS OF WISDOM FROM BOB WALSH
Bob says: The only people who never make a wrong decision are the people who never make a decision at all.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
INTELLIGIBLE WRITING PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING TEST
Here is a little quiz: WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT REQUISITE FOR BECOMING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER?
(A) A college education
(B) A strong body and sound mind
(C) Superior firearms marksmanship
(D) Common sense
(E) Ability to control one’s temper
(F) Absence of racial, ethnic and religious biases
(G) None of the above
The answer is: (G) None of the above.
THE MOST IMPORTANT REQUISITE FOR BECOMING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS THE ABILITY TO WRITE INTELLIGIBLY.
Throughout the United States, law enforcement agencies are expending a great deal of time and money on the application process for and training of police recruits only to discover that they’ve hired officers who are unable to put anything down in writing that makes sense.
Why are intelligible writing skills so important? In order to answer that question you have to know something about how the initial investigation of a crime is conducted. It’s not anything like how investigations are depicted on the CSI television shows.
When a crime is reported, the first responder is almost always a patrol officer. There are also those instances in which an officer observes a crime-in-progress. In the first instance, upon arrival at the scene, the officer must scope the situation, protect the crime scene and any physical evidence, attempt to hold and question any witnesses or potential witnesses, and take copious notes of all he observes and learns.
When it’s a crime-in-progress, the officer has to perform all the same tasks in addition to stopping the crime and attempting to apprehend the perpetrator(s). All these tasks have to be performed by the first responding officer(s) before the case is ever turned over to detectives and crime scene specialists.
Then comes the really hard part. Using his notes, the officer then has to put all the information he obtained into a written report, the narrative of which is accurate and will enable anyone who reads it to fully comprehend everything he observed and learned at the crime scene. That is the INITIAL INVESTIGATION report. If that report is screwed up, the detectives will have to start over from scratch and by that time evidence will have been contaminated and potential witnesses will have disappeared.
The initial investigation reports will also be read by prosecutors, defense attorneys (under the rules of discovery), probation officers (for their pre-sentence investigations), trial judges and appellate judges, and often members of the press. If these reports are well written, the readers should be able to see and proceed through the crime scene with its evidence and witnesses as though they themselves had conducted the investigation.
It is not uncommon for a prosecutor to refuse to accept a criminal complaint because of a poorly written police report. And during trial, a defense attorney will try to plant a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury by using a poorly written report to question the credibility of the entire police investigation.
In my day, we didn’t have computers. All reports were handwritten or typed up. Nowadays, the reports are entered into computers. It’s all the same though – the narrative has to be well written, whether it shows up on a computer screen or on a sheet of paper.
Here’s the rub. Many of our high school graduates can only write at a grade school level. Even some college graduates cannot write intelligibly. It is hard for me to fathom how a student who can only write at a grade school level can earn a high school diploma and how anyone who cannot write intelligibly can obtain a college degree. The bottom line is that there should be no place in law enforcement for anyone who cannot write intelligibly.
The problem is that most police entrance exams do not test an applicant’s writing ability. If the applicant meets the educational requirements and passes the written test, the physical agility test, a psychological evaluation and a comprehensive background check, he is eligible to be hired as a law enforcement officer. If he gets hired he has to successfully complete a lengthy basic peace officer certification course before he can take his place as a police officer.
Your larger police agencies have their own training academies and the recruits are on salary while they are in the academies. Counting their salaries, those training programs cost a lot of money. The smaller departments hire recruits who have completed a similar training program at a college, usually a community college. In either case, the police agency could be stuck with a rookie officer who cannot write intelligibly.
Is there is a way to avoid getting stuck with a police recruit who cannot write intelligibly? There sure is! How? By requiring every police applicant to take a simple pre-employment screening test.
Some years after I left the police agency I served with, it took steps to prevent the hiring of applicants who could not write in a way that it made sense to the reader. When an applicant first seeks to become an officer, he is given two blank sheets of paper. On one he is told to write down his personal history. On the other one he is told to write down why he wants to become a police officer.
Those two written pages are evaluated by selected members of the department. Spelling, as long as it’s not atrocious, is not a factor in the evaluation. If what the applicant has written makes little or no sense, he is not allowed to proceed with the application process. The applicant who cannot write intelligibly is advised to go to a community college and enroll in some remedial writing courses if he wants to apply again.
The NAACP threw a fit because most of the black applicants could not write intelligibly. It alleged that these simple tests were racially discriminatory despite the fact that most white applicants were also prevented from applying as they could not write intelligibly either. Because those writing tests were relevant to police work, the department prevailed over the NAACP’s complaints.
So, there you have a simple solution to a very serious problem. My suggestion to all police agencies is to adopt that simple two-sheets-of-blank-paper writing test. By screening out any applicants who cannot write intelligibly, they will not have to proceed with an expensive and time-consuming application process, only to end up with an officer who will not be able to write an acceptable police report.
(A) A college education
(B) A strong body and sound mind
(C) Superior firearms marksmanship
(D) Common sense
(E) Ability to control one’s temper
(F) Absence of racial, ethnic and religious biases
(G) None of the above
The answer is: (G) None of the above.
THE MOST IMPORTANT REQUISITE FOR BECOMING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS THE ABILITY TO WRITE INTELLIGIBLY.
Throughout the United States, law enforcement agencies are expending a great deal of time and money on the application process for and training of police recruits only to discover that they’ve hired officers who are unable to put anything down in writing that makes sense.
Why are intelligible writing skills so important? In order to answer that question you have to know something about how the initial investigation of a crime is conducted. It’s not anything like how investigations are depicted on the CSI television shows.
When a crime is reported, the first responder is almost always a patrol officer. There are also those instances in which an officer observes a crime-in-progress. In the first instance, upon arrival at the scene, the officer must scope the situation, protect the crime scene and any physical evidence, attempt to hold and question any witnesses or potential witnesses, and take copious notes of all he observes and learns.
When it’s a crime-in-progress, the officer has to perform all the same tasks in addition to stopping the crime and attempting to apprehend the perpetrator(s). All these tasks have to be performed by the first responding officer(s) before the case is ever turned over to detectives and crime scene specialists.
Then comes the really hard part. Using his notes, the officer then has to put all the information he obtained into a written report, the narrative of which is accurate and will enable anyone who reads it to fully comprehend everything he observed and learned at the crime scene. That is the INITIAL INVESTIGATION report. If that report is screwed up, the detectives will have to start over from scratch and by that time evidence will have been contaminated and potential witnesses will have disappeared.
The initial investigation reports will also be read by prosecutors, defense attorneys (under the rules of discovery), probation officers (for their pre-sentence investigations), trial judges and appellate judges, and often members of the press. If these reports are well written, the readers should be able to see and proceed through the crime scene with its evidence and witnesses as though they themselves had conducted the investigation.
It is not uncommon for a prosecutor to refuse to accept a criminal complaint because of a poorly written police report. And during trial, a defense attorney will try to plant a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury by using a poorly written report to question the credibility of the entire police investigation.
In my day, we didn’t have computers. All reports were handwritten or typed up. Nowadays, the reports are entered into computers. It’s all the same though – the narrative has to be well written, whether it shows up on a computer screen or on a sheet of paper.
Here’s the rub. Many of our high school graduates can only write at a grade school level. Even some college graduates cannot write intelligibly. It is hard for me to fathom how a student who can only write at a grade school level can earn a high school diploma and how anyone who cannot write intelligibly can obtain a college degree. The bottom line is that there should be no place in law enforcement for anyone who cannot write intelligibly.
The problem is that most police entrance exams do not test an applicant’s writing ability. If the applicant meets the educational requirements and passes the written test, the physical agility test, a psychological evaluation and a comprehensive background check, he is eligible to be hired as a law enforcement officer. If he gets hired he has to successfully complete a lengthy basic peace officer certification course before he can take his place as a police officer.
Your larger police agencies have their own training academies and the recruits are on salary while they are in the academies. Counting their salaries, those training programs cost a lot of money. The smaller departments hire recruits who have completed a similar training program at a college, usually a community college. In either case, the police agency could be stuck with a rookie officer who cannot write intelligibly.
Is there is a way to avoid getting stuck with a police recruit who cannot write intelligibly? There sure is! How? By requiring every police applicant to take a simple pre-employment screening test.
Some years after I left the police agency I served with, it took steps to prevent the hiring of applicants who could not write in a way that it made sense to the reader. When an applicant first seeks to become an officer, he is given two blank sheets of paper. On one he is told to write down his personal history. On the other one he is told to write down why he wants to become a police officer.
Those two written pages are evaluated by selected members of the department. Spelling, as long as it’s not atrocious, is not a factor in the evaluation. If what the applicant has written makes little or no sense, he is not allowed to proceed with the application process. The applicant who cannot write intelligibly is advised to go to a community college and enroll in some remedial writing courses if he wants to apply again.
The NAACP threw a fit because most of the black applicants could not write intelligibly. It alleged that these simple tests were racially discriminatory despite the fact that most white applicants were also prevented from applying as they could not write intelligibly either. Because those writing tests were relevant to police work, the department prevailed over the NAACP’s complaints.
So, there you have a simple solution to a very serious problem. My suggestion to all police agencies is to adopt that simple two-sheets-of-blank-paper writing test. By screening out any applicants who cannot write intelligibly, they will not have to proceed with an expensive and time-consuming application process, only to end up with an officer who will not be able to write an acceptable police report.
NO JUSTICE IN A POUND OF FLESH HERE
I have to agree with Bob on this one. Sending this guy back to the joint would serve only one purpose – a deterrent to escapes. But in this case it really wouldn’t serve as much of a deterrent since the escapee/parole absconder remained on the lam for over 40 years.
ON THE LAM A LONG TIME
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
March 27, 2010
You just never know who your neighbors are.
In 1951 Frank Dryman shot a man seven times in the back in a Montana oil town. He confessed. He was convicted and sentenced to die on the mobile gallows the state used at the time. The verdict was thrown out because of extensive local publicity. Instead Dryman received life at hard labor. He served 14 years and was paroled. After two years on parole he absconded.
He has been living as Victor Houston in Arizona. He runs small wedding chapel and sells cacti and other nick-nacks to tourists. In all that time he has had one speeding ticket. He was also a sign painter, a trade he learned in prison. He had a daughter and helped raise a stepdaughter.
His victim had a grandson who was born two years after his death. The grandson was bothered by the fact that his grandfather's murderer had not served his full sentence and started to look for him. He wasn't all that hard to find as it turns out. A private investigator located him. He was using his real social security number.
He is now old and feeble. Almost blind. He has survived a go-around with prostate cancer. He could no longer drive, friends brought him food.
He waived extradition and will be picked up in a couple of days by the Montana authorities.
I admit to being of two minds on this one. He shot a man in the back, one while he was running, six more while laying on the ground. However, he served his time in prison. He did take off on parole but appears to have led an exemplary life since then. I admit to not being wild about the criminal justice system in Mexico, but their law does have one interesting item in it. If you escape custody and stay out of official notice for 25 years, they officially let the matter drop. I'm not sure that would be a bad thing to do in this case.
ON THE LAM A LONG TIME
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
March 27, 2010
You just never know who your neighbors are.
In 1951 Frank Dryman shot a man seven times in the back in a Montana oil town. He confessed. He was convicted and sentenced to die on the mobile gallows the state used at the time. The verdict was thrown out because of extensive local publicity. Instead Dryman received life at hard labor. He served 14 years and was paroled. After two years on parole he absconded.
He has been living as Victor Houston in Arizona. He runs small wedding chapel and sells cacti and other nick-nacks to tourists. In all that time he has had one speeding ticket. He was also a sign painter, a trade he learned in prison. He had a daughter and helped raise a stepdaughter.
His victim had a grandson who was born two years after his death. The grandson was bothered by the fact that his grandfather's murderer had not served his full sentence and started to look for him. He wasn't all that hard to find as it turns out. A private investigator located him. He was using his real social security number.
He is now old and feeble. Almost blind. He has survived a go-around with prostate cancer. He could no longer drive, friends brought him food.
He waived extradition and will be picked up in a couple of days by the Montana authorities.
I admit to being of two minds on this one. He shot a man in the back, one while he was running, six more while laying on the ground. However, he served his time in prison. He did take off on parole but appears to have led an exemplary life since then. I admit to not being wild about the criminal justice system in Mexico, but their law does have one interesting item in it. If you escape custody and stay out of official notice for 25 years, they officially let the matter drop. I'm not sure that would be a bad thing to do in this case.
NO-SHOW AT A MARRIOTT
My buddy Jay knows a woman who was a no-show at a Marriott due to a flight diversion totally out of her control. Last year she stayed over 140 nights at Marriott hotels. She complained about being charged $87.20 for the no-show. As a long-standing loyal customer, she received the following e-mail, no doubt written by a college graduate, from the Marriott system:
From: SHENEESE .......... gm@marriott.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:27 PM
To: ……….
Cc: GUEST SUPERVISOR
Subject: No-show
Ms. ……….
My name is Sheneese ………. I am reading over your customer careinquiry that you place with Marriott Customer Care.
I show that your original reservation was made arriving on 03-02-10 and departing on 03-2610. This reservation was never cancel by the cancellation time and you was charge a no show in the amount of $87.20. Per Marriott policy we have to hold a guaranteed reservation from the time the reservation is made until 7:00 the following morning.
By you being a Platinum member we have to hold that room for you all night.
Ms. ………. I am sorry that you are considering canceling your future reservation with the hotel also and leaving the Marriott systyem. We here at the Fairfeild Inn & Suites have not done any wrong doing to you. All the staff have been very nice and friendly to you. You was upgraded you to our executive suites when your reservation was book at the standard king room by the plt desk.
At this time you were charge $87.20 for the no-show.
If I can assist you with anything else please give me a call at ……….
From: SHENEESE .......... gm@marriott.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:27 PM
To: ……….
Cc: GUEST SUPERVISOR
Subject: No-show
Ms. ……….
My name is Sheneese ………. I am reading over your customer careinquiry that you place with Marriott Customer Care.
I show that your original reservation was made arriving on 03-02-10 and departing on 03-2610. This reservation was never cancel by the cancellation time and you was charge a no show in the amount of $87.20. Per Marriott policy we have to hold a guaranteed reservation from the time the reservation is made until 7:00 the following morning.
By you being a Platinum member we have to hold that room for you all night.
Ms. ………. I am sorry that you are considering canceling your future reservation with the hotel also and leaving the Marriott systyem. We here at the Fairfeild Inn & Suites have not done any wrong doing to you. All the staff have been very nice and friendly to you. You was upgraded you to our executive suites when your reservation was book at the standard king room by the plt desk.
At this time you were charge $87.20 for the no-show.
If I can assist you with anything else please give me a call at ……….
HIP HIP HOORAY, HIP HIP HOORAY, HIP HIP HOORAY FOR TEXAS
Why I’m proud to be a Texan!
WE’RE NO. 1! (IN EXECUTIONS)
By Margaret Downing
Houston Press
March 26, 2010
In its 2009 Death Penalty and Executions report released today, Amnesty International calls Texas the "worst offender," because -- with 24 executions -- it leads the country in the number of people it killed last year.
In fact, Texas all by itself comes in 7th in the world "trailing only the rest of the United States, and the governments of Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and China," according to the report.
Sharon Singh, the Amnesty media relations director concedes that their numbers -- 714 people executed in 18 countries and 2001 people sentenced to death in 56 countries in 2009 -- do "not include the thousands of executions that were likely to have taken place in China, where information on the death penalty remains a state secret."
In Texas, where executions are part of the public record, the state "has already executed four men in 2010, and another, Franklin Alix, is scheduled to be put to death on the evening of March 30," Singh notes.
Still, there is some hope among the anti crowd. The report notes that even Texas juries are "part of a national trend turning away from the death penalty as they handed down fewer death sentences in 2009."
The report notes that: Fifteen states have now abolished the death penalty in the United States. An additional 10 states have not carried out an execution in more than 10 years."
Hair Balls guesses the chances for that happening in Texas are about the same as the state's residents voting to legalize marijuana.
WE’RE NO. 1! (IN EXECUTIONS)
By Margaret Downing
Houston Press
March 26, 2010
In its 2009 Death Penalty and Executions report released today, Amnesty International calls Texas the "worst offender," because -- with 24 executions -- it leads the country in the number of people it killed last year.
In fact, Texas all by itself comes in 7th in the world "trailing only the rest of the United States, and the governments of Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and China," according to the report.
Sharon Singh, the Amnesty media relations director concedes that their numbers -- 714 people executed in 18 countries and 2001 people sentenced to death in 56 countries in 2009 -- do "not include the thousands of executions that were likely to have taken place in China, where information on the death penalty remains a state secret."
In Texas, where executions are part of the public record, the state "has already executed four men in 2010, and another, Franklin Alix, is scheduled to be put to death on the evening of March 30," Singh notes.
Still, there is some hope among the anti crowd. The report notes that even Texas juries are "part of a national trend turning away from the death penalty as they handed down fewer death sentences in 2009."
The report notes that: Fifteen states have now abolished the death penalty in the United States. An additional 10 states have not carried out an execution in more than 10 years."
Hair Balls guesses the chances for that happening in Texas are about the same as the state's residents voting to legalize marijuana.
WE START 'EM OUT YOUNG IN TEXAS
He looks like a sure-fire prospect for NASCAR.
TEXAS 12-YEAR-OLD LEADS POLICE ON CHASE
Deputies: Boy had marijuana, pistol and stolen car
By Jackie Vega
WLFI.com
March 26, 2010
FAYETTE COUNTY, Texas (KXAN) - Authorities said a 12-year-old boy was behind the wheel of a truck that led them on a nighttime chase through Fayette County Monday night, with speeds topping 100 mph.
Fayette County Sheriff Keith Korenek said the chase began at 10 p.m. after calls came in about a possible intoxicated driver on eastbound I-10 who did not have his headlights on.
A sheriff's deputy said he found the boy in the vehicle and tried to conduct a traffic stop, but the vehicle refused to stop.
Deputies chased the vehicle for about 14 miles until Weimar Police Department officers spiked the tires, bringing it to a halt. That's when authorities said they noticed the driver was a 12-year-old runaway from Comal County.
Authorities said he had marijuana, drug paraphernalia, a pistol and the vehicle that he had taken from his father without permission.
Video showed the boy exiting the vehicle with his hands raised and saying he was trying to call his mother. No one was hurt.
Deputies took the boy to the Juvenile Detention Center in Victoria, and a judge in La Grange later decided the child must stay in juvenile detention during the investigation.
TEXAS 12-YEAR-OLD LEADS POLICE ON CHASE
Deputies: Boy had marijuana, pistol and stolen car
By Jackie Vega
WLFI.com
March 26, 2010
FAYETTE COUNTY, Texas (KXAN) - Authorities said a 12-year-old boy was behind the wheel of a truck that led them on a nighttime chase through Fayette County Monday night, with speeds topping 100 mph.
Fayette County Sheriff Keith Korenek said the chase began at 10 p.m. after calls came in about a possible intoxicated driver on eastbound I-10 who did not have his headlights on.
A sheriff's deputy said he found the boy in the vehicle and tried to conduct a traffic stop, but the vehicle refused to stop.
Deputies chased the vehicle for about 14 miles until Weimar Police Department officers spiked the tires, bringing it to a halt. That's when authorities said they noticed the driver was a 12-year-old runaway from Comal County.
Authorities said he had marijuana, drug paraphernalia, a pistol and the vehicle that he had taken from his father without permission.
Video showed the boy exiting the vehicle with his hands raised and saying he was trying to call his mother. No one was hurt.
Deputies took the boy to the Juvenile Detention Center in Victoria, and a judge in La Grange later decided the child must stay in juvenile detention during the investigation.
Friday, March 26, 2010
THE ISRAELIS ARE FIGHTING THE WEST'S FIGHT AGAINST GLOBAL JIHAD
A former colleague, believing that the Israeli prime minister was humiliated by our president this week, wrote: For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama...
Diane West saw it the same way when she wrote that Obama treated “…visiting Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu like an international leper this week (no pictures, no press, no statements, no nothing). West’s column, “A Sudden Turn Against Israel,” in today’s Townhall.com blames the current rift between the United States and Israel on the Obama administration’s failure to recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just a small part of a grand Islamic jihad against the West. Here is an excerpt from West’s column:
In his book "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism," Andrew Bostom explains the doctrinal basis not just of Islamic antisemitism -- an eternal driver of the jihad on Israel -- but also of the concept that there exists a kind of eternal right of return of Muslims to any former Muslim conquest. "All of historical Palestine," he writes, "whose pre-Islamic inhabitants, Jews, Samaritans and Christians were conquered by jihad in the fourth decade of the seventh century, is considered 'fay territory.'" In other words, having once been conquered by Islam, such land is considered by Muslims to be "a permanent part of the Dar al Islam, where Islamic law must forever prevail." According to this thinking, Israel, governed by "usurper" infidel Jews who are no longer a subjugated dhimmi people, "must be destroyed in a collective jihad by the entire Muslim community."
Hard to ignore such a potent source of aggrieved aggression. But we do, and to the point of denying its very existence. And then what? Oskar Freysinger of the Swiss People's Party, famous for leading the campaign to ban minaret construction in Switzerland, when explaining why his party, known for its anti-Islamization policies, had always supported Israel, once told me: "We are well aware that if Israel disappears, we lose a vanguard. They (the Israelis) are fighting our fight, in fact. As long as the Muslims are concentrated on Israel, it's not so hard for us. But as soon as Israel will have disappeared, they will come to get the other part" -- namely, Europe.
What Freysinger sees better than most (including Israelis) is the apocalyptic dimension to global jihad, regardless of the "peace process" and other camouflage. Not only are we witnessing what could be the final stages of jihad on Israel; the United States is now openly supporting the wrong side.
Diane West saw it the same way when she wrote that Obama treated “…visiting Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu like an international leper this week (no pictures, no press, no statements, no nothing). West’s column, “A Sudden Turn Against Israel,” in today’s Townhall.com blames the current rift between the United States and Israel on the Obama administration’s failure to recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just a small part of a grand Islamic jihad against the West. Here is an excerpt from West’s column:
In his book "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism," Andrew Bostom explains the doctrinal basis not just of Islamic antisemitism -- an eternal driver of the jihad on Israel -- but also of the concept that there exists a kind of eternal right of return of Muslims to any former Muslim conquest. "All of historical Palestine," he writes, "whose pre-Islamic inhabitants, Jews, Samaritans and Christians were conquered by jihad in the fourth decade of the seventh century, is considered 'fay territory.'" In other words, having once been conquered by Islam, such land is considered by Muslims to be "a permanent part of the Dar al Islam, where Islamic law must forever prevail." According to this thinking, Israel, governed by "usurper" infidel Jews who are no longer a subjugated dhimmi people, "must be destroyed in a collective jihad by the entire Muslim community."
Hard to ignore such a potent source of aggrieved aggression. But we do, and to the point of denying its very existence. And then what? Oskar Freysinger of the Swiss People's Party, famous for leading the campaign to ban minaret construction in Switzerland, when explaining why his party, known for its anti-Islamization policies, had always supported Israel, once told me: "We are well aware that if Israel disappears, we lose a vanguard. They (the Israelis) are fighting our fight, in fact. As long as the Muslims are concentrated on Israel, it's not so hard for us. But as soon as Israel will have disappeared, they will come to get the other part" -- namely, Europe.
What Freysinger sees better than most (including Israelis) is the apocalyptic dimension to global jihad, regardless of the "peace process" and other camouflage. Not only are we witnessing what could be the final stages of jihad on Israel; the United States is now openly supporting the wrong side.
MARGINALLY QUALIFIED
I just got back from lunch with a veteran police officer who is a member of an elite unit in a large metropolitan law enforcement agency. We were discussing the lowering of employee applicant standards to accommodate protected groups – minorities and women.
When I said that anytime you lower the qualifications for any one group you are also lowering them for everyone else, with the result that there will be far more white males than minorities or women who can take advantage of the lowered standards. He agreed, adding that you then end up with a lot of MARGINALLY QUALIFIED majority (white male) employees.
When I said that anytime you lower the qualifications for any one group you are also lowering them for everyone else, with the result that there will be far more white males than minorities or women who can take advantage of the lowered standards. He agreed, adding that you then end up with a lot of MARGINALLY QUALIFIED majority (white male) employees.
GASOLINE-POWERED ALARM CLOCK
The government ENERGY STAR certification program is supposed to set high energy saving standards for electrical appliances. The program is run jointly by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Energy Star label is supposed to assure consumers that an electrical appliance meets those standards.
It seems that the Energy Star is rather dim! The DOE and EPA have been taking the manufacturers’ word that their products meet those high energy saving standards without doing anything to verify that those appliances actually warranted the Energy Star certification.
Investigators submitted 15 phony products, including a GASOLINE-POWERED ALARM CLOCK for certification and guess what – each of the 15 phony products received the Energy Star certification, including the gasoline-powered alarm clock which, if there were such a contraption, is not even an electrical appliance.
It seems that the Energy Star is rather dim! The DOE and EPA have been taking the manufacturers’ word that their products meet those high energy saving standards without doing anything to verify that those appliances actually warranted the Energy Star certification.
Investigators submitted 15 phony products, including a GASOLINE-POWERED ALARM CLOCK for certification and guess what – each of the 15 phony products received the Energy Star certification, including the gasoline-powered alarm clock which, if there were such a contraption, is not even an electrical appliance.
MY KIND OF DOG (2)
A judge has sentenced the doggie in “My Kind of Dog” (3-16-10) to attend dog obedience training school. What does all this say about the quality of American made cars when a dog can chew off the bumper of a police car?
DOG THAT ATTACKED POLICE CARS MUST ATTEND CLASSES
Associated Press
March 26, 2010
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. – A pit bull mix in Tennessee has been sentenced to obedience training after his dogged attack on a local police car.
Winston didn't bite anybody, but he mauled a Chattanooga police car in what might have been a confused attempt to take a bite out of crime. The persistent pooch managed to tear off a section of the front bumper and damage the tires.
The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that a judge ruled that Winston had been a very bad dog. He was sentenced to obedience and canine good citizen classes, and he'll have to wear a tag that says he is "potentially dangerous."
Charges against his owner will be dismissed if the classes are completed successfully.
Owner Nancy Emerling said Winston got out of a fenced-in area at a welding shop March 14.
DOG THAT ATTACKED POLICE CARS MUST ATTEND CLASSES
Associated Press
March 26, 2010
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. – A pit bull mix in Tennessee has been sentenced to obedience training after his dogged attack on a local police car.
Winston didn't bite anybody, but he mauled a Chattanooga police car in what might have been a confused attempt to take a bite out of crime. The persistent pooch managed to tear off a section of the front bumper and damage the tires.
The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that a judge ruled that Winston had been a very bad dog. He was sentenced to obedience and canine good citizen classes, and he'll have to wear a tag that says he is "potentially dangerous."
Charges against his owner will be dismissed if the classes are completed successfully.
Owner Nancy Emerling said Winston got out of a fenced-in area at a welding shop March 14.
'HELLO GRANDMA' SCAM
The ‘Hello Grandma’ scam, which has bilked hundreds of seniors out of their life savings, has been around for years and is particularly prevalent during spring break. The scammer telephones the unsuspecting victim pretending to be her grandson. He tells her that he got into a little trouble and needs bail money to get out of jail. He asks her to “please don’t let dad know about this.” He then gives the gullible victim instructions on how to send the money.
Here is how the Yavapai County (Arizona) Sheriff’s Department describes the scam:
“The ‘grandson’ asks for money in order to post bail and then puts a person on the line that is identified as a bail bondsman. The bondsman provides the bail amount, usually several thousand dollars, and requests the money be wired using a MoneyGram or Western Union service. In some cases the “bondsman,” aka fraud suspect, even calls back to thank the victim for their cooperation after the transaction. Many of these suspects use social networking sights, such as MySpace or Facebook, to identify family members through profiles and photos. This is followed by a simple check of online phone directories which provides a telephone number for the target victim and the scam is underway. In some cases, suspects are able to note travel plans and specific family information that makes the scheme that much more plausible to the victim.”
What is most disturbing about this scam is that many of the scam artists are prison inmates who, through the efforts of reform minded do-gooders, have been given liberal phone and internet access privileges.
Here is how the Yavapai County (Arizona) Sheriff’s Department describes the scam:
“The ‘grandson’ asks for money in order to post bail and then puts a person on the line that is identified as a bail bondsman. The bondsman provides the bail amount, usually several thousand dollars, and requests the money be wired using a MoneyGram or Western Union service. In some cases the “bondsman,” aka fraud suspect, even calls back to thank the victim for their cooperation after the transaction. Many of these suspects use social networking sights, such as MySpace or Facebook, to identify family members through profiles and photos. This is followed by a simple check of online phone directories which provides a telephone number for the target victim and the scam is underway. In some cases, suspects are able to note travel plans and specific family information that makes the scheme that much more plausible to the victim.”
What is most disturbing about this scam is that many of the scam artists are prison inmates who, through the efforts of reform minded do-gooders, have been given liberal phone and internet access privileges.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
DELAY THIS EXECUTION (2)
An hour before Henry Skinner was scheduled to be put to death, the Supreme Court issued a stay of execution. As I understand it, the court did not act on the issue of DNA testing, but rather on the fact that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reused to accept the claim that Skinner’s civil rights were violated by the State’s refusal to do that testing.
As an advocate for the death penalty, I don’t see this stay as a big deal. As a matter of fact, I called for a delay of the execution in my blog of March 21. I suspect that if this case results in further DNA testing, the results will show that Skinner is the killer and that should shut up all those death penalty opponents who have been screaming bloody murder about this case, both in the U.S. and abroad. Of course, if the testing absolves Skinner of this crime, so be it. I certainly do not want to see an innocent man put to death.
Here are a few excerpts from the Houston Chronicle:
U.S. SUPREME COURT DELAYS TEXAS EXECUTION
By Allan Turner
Houston Chronicle
March 25, 2010
HUNTSVILLE — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday halted the execution of Henry Skinner just one hour before he was to be put to death for the 1993 murders of his Pampa girlfriend and her two adult sons.
The stay will remain in effect until the high court rules on a second petition filed by Skinner's attorneys asking for a review of an appellate court decision denying a request for DNA testing of bloody knives, material beneath the dead woman's fingernails, rape kit samples and other items found at the murder scene. Skinner's request for testing was denied because it was filed as a civil rights claim.
Lead attorney Rob Owen of the University of Texas' Capital Punishment Center said in his petition for a writ of certioari that seven of the nation's nine federal circuit courts of appeal would have accepted a civil rights claim. Only two, including the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, which turned Skinner down, would not.
Skinner's case gained international notoriety after journalism students from Chicago's Northwestern University reviewed the case, locating potential witnesses who hadn't been interrogated and drawing attention to the fact that seemingly important items never had been subjected to DNA testing.
Wednesday's Supreme Court action came after a series of setbacks for the killer. Earlier, the high court had refused to review the way a lower court had analyzed his claim of insufficient counsel. This week, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted 7-0 against recommending his life be spared.
Initial DNA testing found that Skinner's clothing was positive for the blood of Twila Busby and one of her sons. Nuclear DNA testing of hair in her hand was positive for Skinner's DNA. But when the same hair was subjected to mitochondrial DNA testing, no trace of Skinner's DNA was found.
As an advocate for the death penalty, I don’t see this stay as a big deal. As a matter of fact, I called for a delay of the execution in my blog of March 21. I suspect that if this case results in further DNA testing, the results will show that Skinner is the killer and that should shut up all those death penalty opponents who have been screaming bloody murder about this case, both in the U.S. and abroad. Of course, if the testing absolves Skinner of this crime, so be it. I certainly do not want to see an innocent man put to death.
Here are a few excerpts from the Houston Chronicle:
U.S. SUPREME COURT DELAYS TEXAS EXECUTION
By Allan Turner
Houston Chronicle
March 25, 2010
HUNTSVILLE — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday halted the execution of Henry Skinner just one hour before he was to be put to death for the 1993 murders of his Pampa girlfriend and her two adult sons.
The stay will remain in effect until the high court rules on a second petition filed by Skinner's attorneys asking for a review of an appellate court decision denying a request for DNA testing of bloody knives, material beneath the dead woman's fingernails, rape kit samples and other items found at the murder scene. Skinner's request for testing was denied because it was filed as a civil rights claim.
Lead attorney Rob Owen of the University of Texas' Capital Punishment Center said in his petition for a writ of certioari that seven of the nation's nine federal circuit courts of appeal would have accepted a civil rights claim. Only two, including the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, which turned Skinner down, would not.
Skinner's case gained international notoriety after journalism students from Chicago's Northwestern University reviewed the case, locating potential witnesses who hadn't been interrogated and drawing attention to the fact that seemingly important items never had been subjected to DNA testing.
Wednesday's Supreme Court action came after a series of setbacks for the killer. Earlier, the high court had refused to review the way a lower court had analyzed his claim of insufficient counsel. This week, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted 7-0 against recommending his life be spared.
Initial DNA testing found that Skinner's clothing was positive for the blood of Twila Busby and one of her sons. Nuclear DNA testing of hair in her hand was positive for Skinner's DNA. But when the same hair was subjected to mitochondrial DNA testing, no trace of Skinner's DNA was found.
ISRAEL IS HELPING SAVE AMERICAN LIVES
In his speech to AIPAC on Monday night, Prime Minister Netanyahu rebutted the lies spread by long-time Palestinian mouthpiece Mark Perry, a correspondent for Foreign Policy and former advisor to Yasser Arafat, and by Yediot Acharonot, the voice of Israel’s left, which acts as a “Fifth Column” for the Palestinians. Perry and Yediot Acharonot deliberately spread the lie that Israel’s policies endangered the lives of American soldiers.
Those lies received wide coverage by America’s media. Netanyahu’s rebuttal received almost no coverage! Could that be because our mostly liberal media is biased against Israel?
Here is Netanyahu’s rebuttal to those lies:
“For decades, Israel served as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism. Today it is helping America stem the tide of militant Islam. Israel shares with America everything we know about fighting a new kind of enemy,” the prime minister continued. “We share intelligence. We cooperate in countless other ways that I am not at liberty to divulge. This cooperation is important for Israel and is helping save American lives.”
Those lies received wide coverage by America’s media. Netanyahu’s rebuttal received almost no coverage! Could that be because our mostly liberal media is biased against Israel?
Here is Netanyahu’s rebuttal to those lies:
“For decades, Israel served as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism. Today it is helping America stem the tide of militant Islam. Israel shares with America everything we know about fighting a new kind of enemy,” the prime minister continued. “We share intelligence. We cooperate in countless other ways that I am not at liberty to divulge. This cooperation is important for Israel and is helping save American lives.”
ONLY $12 FOR AN ENTIRE WEEKEND
EAST TEXAS MAN VIES FOR TITLE AS SICKEST CHILD MOLESTER OF ALL TIME
By John Nova Lomax
Houston Press
March 24, 2010
You know what they say. If an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is.
That was what residents or rural Jasper County thought in January of 2009, when poorly-written handmade signs started popping up along backroads offering dirt cheap babysitting services.
How cheap? How about $12 for an entire weekend for up to four children.
Wow. What a deal. What's the catch?
Well, like the sign said, the children all had to be females. What's more, they needed to be between 11 months and nine years old.
And then there was the whole matter of the babysitter: 55 year-old Thomas Louis Van Hooks had been convicted over the years of exposing himself to three little girls -- a three-year-old, a four-year-old, and a six-year-old -- but by then, he was off parole and there were no stipulations that he stay away from children.
And make no mistake: as if his fledgling babysitting business didn't offer enough of a hint he was not reformed, there was his dream of helping to direct more erotic diapers commercials.
In 2004, he was alleged to have written Proctor & Gamble, the parent company of Pampers, a letter outlining 12 ways they could do more to show the genital area of little girls in their TV commercials. According to the Beaumont Examiner : "One scenario was that Pampers' commercials should show a little girl laying on a couch for a diaper change and the cameras could show her, 'with her little legs wide open.'"
The seven-page letter went on to express a belief that diaper wipes should be used on girls as old as nine and closed thusly: "there should not be a problem of your showing a nine-year-old girl's beautiful, pretty little hairless ..."
Proctor & Gamble's head of corporate security forwarded the letter to Jasper County authorities.
Van Hook was arrested in January of last year and charged with failing to comply with his sex offender registration -- a spokesperson for the Jasper County District Attorney's office tells Hair Balls that Van Hook failed to inform authorities about the nature of his employment. On raiding his house, cops hauled away several garbage bags full of what they described as "sexual paraphernalia," including dolls.
He had been held on $300,000 bond ever since then and yesterday he was convicted. He faces a Jasper County jury today in his punishment phase. We'll update when his sentence comes in, but we think it's safe to predict that Van Hook won't be doing much babysitting any time soon.
By John Nova Lomax
Houston Press
March 24, 2010
You know what they say. If an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is.
That was what residents or rural Jasper County thought in January of 2009, when poorly-written handmade signs started popping up along backroads offering dirt cheap babysitting services.
How cheap? How about $12 for an entire weekend for up to four children.
Wow. What a deal. What's the catch?
Well, like the sign said, the children all had to be females. What's more, they needed to be between 11 months and nine years old.
And then there was the whole matter of the babysitter: 55 year-old Thomas Louis Van Hooks had been convicted over the years of exposing himself to three little girls -- a three-year-old, a four-year-old, and a six-year-old -- but by then, he was off parole and there were no stipulations that he stay away from children.
And make no mistake: as if his fledgling babysitting business didn't offer enough of a hint he was not reformed, there was his dream of helping to direct more erotic diapers commercials.
In 2004, he was alleged to have written Proctor & Gamble, the parent company of Pampers, a letter outlining 12 ways they could do more to show the genital area of little girls in their TV commercials. According to the Beaumont Examiner : "One scenario was that Pampers' commercials should show a little girl laying on a couch for a diaper change and the cameras could show her, 'with her little legs wide open.'"
The seven-page letter went on to express a belief that diaper wipes should be used on girls as old as nine and closed thusly: "there should not be a problem of your showing a nine-year-old girl's beautiful, pretty little hairless ..."
Proctor & Gamble's head of corporate security forwarded the letter to Jasper County authorities.
Van Hook was arrested in January of last year and charged with failing to comply with his sex offender registration -- a spokesperson for the Jasper County District Attorney's office tells Hair Balls that Van Hook failed to inform authorities about the nature of his employment. On raiding his house, cops hauled away several garbage bags full of what they described as "sexual paraphernalia," including dolls.
He had been held on $300,000 bond ever since then and yesterday he was convicted. He faces a Jasper County jury today in his punishment phase. We'll update when his sentence comes in, but we think it's safe to predict that Van Hook won't be doing much babysitting any time soon.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
THIS IS FOR ALL YOU CHICKEN LITTLE GUN CONTROL NUTS
Take that all you Chicken Little gun control nuts with your predictions of the sky falling in if citizens were to be licensed to carry concealed weapons.
RECORD NUMBERS NOW LICENSED TO PACK HEAT
Firearms death fall as millions obtain permits to carry concealed guns
By Mike Stuckey
Senior news editor
msnbc.com
March 24, 2010
Waving a chromed semiautomatic pistol, the robber pushed into the building in the bustling Five Points neighborhood of Columbia, S.C., just before 11 p.m. on April 11, 2009. “Gimme what you got!” he yelled, his gun hand trembling.
Attorney Jim Corley was one of four people in the room, the lounge area of a 12-step recovery group’s meeting hall. “He said, ‘Give me your wallet,’” Corley recalled. “So I reached around to my back pocket and gave him what was there.”
Unfortunately for the gunman, later identified as Kayson Helms, 18, of Edison, N.J., that was Corley’s tiny Kel-Tec .32, hidden in a wallet holster and loaded with a half-dozen hollow points. Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso. Helms ran into the night and collapsed to die on a railroad embankment 100 feet away.
Reports filed by officers who arrived at the scene a short time later called it an “exceptionally clear” case of justifiable homicide. Following South Carolina’s “Castle Doctrine,” which allows the use of deadly force in self-defense, police did not arrest Corley. They did not interrogate him. Corley was offered the opportunity to make a voluntary statement, which he did.
Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit.
Jim Corley became an unintentional spokesman for a burgeoning movement of millions of Americans who secretly and legally pack pistols in waistbands, under jackets, strapped to ankles, stashed in purses or — like Corley — tucked in hip pockets.
From its beginnings in the 1980s, the “right-to-carry” movement has succeeded in boosting the number of licensed concealed-gun carriers from fewer than 1 million to a record 6 million today, according to estimates from gun-rights groups that are supported by msnbc.com’s research. And while hotly debated, the effect of this dramatic increase is largely unknown.
Gun enthusiasts claim a link between more private citizens carrying concealed weapons and the nation’s dramatic decrease in violent crime. Gun-control activists argue that concealed-carry permits are being handed out to people who should never get them, sometimes resulting in tragic, needless shootings.
EFFECT ON CRIME IS HOTLY DEBATED
But even with the push to expand concealed-carry rights now in its third decade, no scientific studies have reached any widely accepted conclusions about the movement’s effect on crime or personal safety.
Statistics from the national Centers for Disease Control do indicate that the murder and mayhem predicted by many opponents of concealed-carry laws have not come to pass. But even that point, while celebrated by gun-rights activists and conceded by some concealed-carry opponents, is disputed by others.
Both sides do agree on one thing: More Americans than ever are carrying hidden guns.
Firearms laws have been growing more relaxed across the United States for years. Gun-control activists have failed in efforts to re-enact the nationwide ban on certain semiautomatic rifles they call “assault weapons.” They were unable to block a change in federal law, signed by President Obama this year, which allows guns to be carried in national parks. And they watched in dismay as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the Second Amendment grants residents of Washington, D.C., the right to own and keep loaded handguns in their homes.
RECORD NUMBERS NOW LICENSED TO PACK HEAT
Firearms death fall as millions obtain permits to carry concealed guns
By Mike Stuckey
Senior news editor
msnbc.com
March 24, 2010
Waving a chromed semiautomatic pistol, the robber pushed into the building in the bustling Five Points neighborhood of Columbia, S.C., just before 11 p.m. on April 11, 2009. “Gimme what you got!” he yelled, his gun hand trembling.
Attorney Jim Corley was one of four people in the room, the lounge area of a 12-step recovery group’s meeting hall. “He said, ‘Give me your wallet,’” Corley recalled. “So I reached around to my back pocket and gave him what was there.”
Unfortunately for the gunman, later identified as Kayson Helms, 18, of Edison, N.J., that was Corley’s tiny Kel-Tec .32, hidden in a wallet holster and loaded with a half-dozen hollow points. Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso. Helms ran into the night and collapsed to die on a railroad embankment 100 feet away.
Reports filed by officers who arrived at the scene a short time later called it an “exceptionally clear” case of justifiable homicide. Following South Carolina’s “Castle Doctrine,” which allows the use of deadly force in self-defense, police did not arrest Corley. They did not interrogate him. Corley was offered the opportunity to make a voluntary statement, which he did.
Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit.
Jim Corley became an unintentional spokesman for a burgeoning movement of millions of Americans who secretly and legally pack pistols in waistbands, under jackets, strapped to ankles, stashed in purses or — like Corley — tucked in hip pockets.
From its beginnings in the 1980s, the “right-to-carry” movement has succeeded in boosting the number of licensed concealed-gun carriers from fewer than 1 million to a record 6 million today, according to estimates from gun-rights groups that are supported by msnbc.com’s research. And while hotly debated, the effect of this dramatic increase is largely unknown.
Gun enthusiasts claim a link between more private citizens carrying concealed weapons and the nation’s dramatic decrease in violent crime. Gun-control activists argue that concealed-carry permits are being handed out to people who should never get them, sometimes resulting in tragic, needless shootings.
EFFECT ON CRIME IS HOTLY DEBATED
But even with the push to expand concealed-carry rights now in its third decade, no scientific studies have reached any widely accepted conclusions about the movement’s effect on crime or personal safety.
Statistics from the national Centers for Disease Control do indicate that the murder and mayhem predicted by many opponents of concealed-carry laws have not come to pass. But even that point, while celebrated by gun-rights activists and conceded by some concealed-carry opponents, is disputed by others.
Both sides do agree on one thing: More Americans than ever are carrying hidden guns.
Firearms laws have been growing more relaxed across the United States for years. Gun-control activists have failed in efforts to re-enact the nationwide ban on certain semiautomatic rifles they call “assault weapons.” They were unable to block a change in federal law, signed by President Obama this year, which allows guns to be carried in national parks. And they watched in dismay as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the Second Amendment grants residents of Washington, D.C., the right to own and keep loaded handguns in their homes.
THIS SWINGER PROBABLY WON'T BE SWINGING AGAIN (2)
The swinger’s family and friends set up a Catastrophic Time Bank that his fellow correctional officers’ could contribute to. AND THEY DID! Not only did John Smiley try to commit a fraud against the Workers’ Compensation Fund, but he also defrauded anyone who contributed to his CTB fund. What chutzpah!
RETROSPECT: “UNBREAKABLE” SMILEY’S CTB PLEA, IN HIS OWN WORDS…
Smiley conned ‘em
PacoVilla Corrections blog
March 24, 2010
Smiley played on their sympathy, loyalty and fear--He played his fellow CO's.
[The text released by ‘The family and friends of Officer John Smiley’ follows]
UNBREAKABLE:
Transportation Officer John Smiley vows to fully recover from a vicious attack with a little help from his friends and fellow officers
Forward by: The family and friends of Officer John Smiley
Being 6 feet 8 inches tall always gave John Smiley an advantage in life. He excelled on the varsity basketball team in high school in Springfield, Massachusetts, and in college preparatory school in Fork Union, Virginia.
After college, his stature helped him to manage and counsel juvenile delinquents for the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services. As a decorated correctional officer in California, his size helped John safely transport dangerous inmates, stop large riots, and prevent inmate escapes.
However, on April 26, 2008, that tall stature may have made John stand out enough to attract the attention of a violent and ruthless individual, and since that fateful night, his size has made his life and his recovery from a paralyzing injury much more difficult.
John's attacker is suspected to be a parolee who possibly recognized him as an officer. The suspect is still at large. John is a determined young man with a loving family and many friends, all of which will definitely help him reach his goal to walk again. He began his career with CDCR at CSP-Solano, but at the time of the incident he was working as a transportation officer out of the Northern Transportation Hub. We sincerely appreciate all the support he's received so far, and we are hopeful that the kindness of others who read his story here in the Peacekeeper, will further bolster John's recovery efforts, assisting both John and his family through this long and heartwrenching ordeal. Thank you.
The family and friends of Officer John Smiley
In John's words...
On April 26, I spent a beautiful day at the San Francisco Zoo with my wife, Cindy, two children, Ciana and Jacob, and my in-laws, Frank and Angela. This wonderful afternoon was followed by a great dinner and an offer from the grandparents that they would watch the kids so Cindy and I could have a long overdue evening out together. Of course, I had no idea then that our lives were about to change forever.
My wife and I were sitting at a table in a club, when a guy walked up to us and said that I disrespected his woman. I told him I didn't realize I had, but if I did, I apologize. Not good enough for him. He then asked if I knew what he does for a living, then told me he "kills people for a living." He asked if I had my "heat" with me. I apologized again, but that was still not good enough for him. Then he told me he was going to kill me. We quickly left the club and as we were walking to our car, the real nightmare began.
A car pulled up, shots were fired, and I felt a sharp pain in my back. The same guy got out of the car and said, "I told you I was going to kill you!" I thought, I must be dreaming, this can't be real! Who was this guy who shot me in the back and left me paralyzed? Where do I remember him from? Solano, or one of the big green buses? None of it makes any sense. I can't believe the doctors say I probably will never walk again. Not true! I will play ball with Jacob, and I will walk Ciana down the aisle on her wedding day. I know I can do this, but not alone. Right now I need to get through the intense pain of the injury, find the right wheelchair and other disability equipment that fits me, and make some critical renovations to my home.
Then, I need to get into a rehab unit that also believes I will walk again, and will work just as hard as I will to achieve that goal. I believe I found that in Project Walk in San Diego. It's the most experienced, exercise-based rehabilitation program in the world. It's expensive and not covered by insurance, but my relatives, coworkers, and friends have been so generous in their prayers for my recovery and in their financial assistance that I know I can make it.
HOW YOU CAN HELP
A Catastrophic Time Bank has been set up to help John Smiley and his family during the long transition and recovery period. Any state employee or CalPERS member may donate any leave credits (except for sick time). Complete a Catastrophic Time Bank Donation Authorization (CDC 869) and submit to your personnel office.
Please indicate Officer Smiley's position number: 065-212-9662-147
A bank account has also been established to help John's family with additional and unexpected expenses. Donations can be made to:
Name: Cynthia Smiley
Institution: Bank of America
Account #: ..........
RETROSPECT: “UNBREAKABLE” SMILEY’S CTB PLEA, IN HIS OWN WORDS…
Smiley conned ‘em
PacoVilla Corrections blog
March 24, 2010
Smiley played on their sympathy, loyalty and fear--He played his fellow CO's.
[The text released by ‘The family and friends of Officer John Smiley’ follows]
UNBREAKABLE:
Transportation Officer John Smiley vows to fully recover from a vicious attack with a little help from his friends and fellow officers
Forward by: The family and friends of Officer John Smiley
Being 6 feet 8 inches tall always gave John Smiley an advantage in life. He excelled on the varsity basketball team in high school in Springfield, Massachusetts, and in college preparatory school in Fork Union, Virginia.
After college, his stature helped him to manage and counsel juvenile delinquents for the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services. As a decorated correctional officer in California, his size helped John safely transport dangerous inmates, stop large riots, and prevent inmate escapes.
However, on April 26, 2008, that tall stature may have made John stand out enough to attract the attention of a violent and ruthless individual, and since that fateful night, his size has made his life and his recovery from a paralyzing injury much more difficult.
John's attacker is suspected to be a parolee who possibly recognized him as an officer. The suspect is still at large. John is a determined young man with a loving family and many friends, all of which will definitely help him reach his goal to walk again. He began his career with CDCR at CSP-Solano, but at the time of the incident he was working as a transportation officer out of the Northern Transportation Hub. We sincerely appreciate all the support he's received so far, and we are hopeful that the kindness of others who read his story here in the Peacekeeper, will further bolster John's recovery efforts, assisting both John and his family through this long and heartwrenching ordeal. Thank you.
The family and friends of Officer John Smiley
In John's words...
On April 26, I spent a beautiful day at the San Francisco Zoo with my wife, Cindy, two children, Ciana and Jacob, and my in-laws, Frank and Angela. This wonderful afternoon was followed by a great dinner and an offer from the grandparents that they would watch the kids so Cindy and I could have a long overdue evening out together. Of course, I had no idea then that our lives were about to change forever.
My wife and I were sitting at a table in a club, when a guy walked up to us and said that I disrespected his woman. I told him I didn't realize I had, but if I did, I apologize. Not good enough for him. He then asked if I knew what he does for a living, then told me he "kills people for a living." He asked if I had my "heat" with me. I apologized again, but that was still not good enough for him. Then he told me he was going to kill me. We quickly left the club and as we were walking to our car, the real nightmare began.
A car pulled up, shots were fired, and I felt a sharp pain in my back. The same guy got out of the car and said, "I told you I was going to kill you!" I thought, I must be dreaming, this can't be real! Who was this guy who shot me in the back and left me paralyzed? Where do I remember him from? Solano, or one of the big green buses? None of it makes any sense. I can't believe the doctors say I probably will never walk again. Not true! I will play ball with Jacob, and I will walk Ciana down the aisle on her wedding day. I know I can do this, but not alone. Right now I need to get through the intense pain of the injury, find the right wheelchair and other disability equipment that fits me, and make some critical renovations to my home.
Then, I need to get into a rehab unit that also believes I will walk again, and will work just as hard as I will to achieve that goal. I believe I found that in Project Walk in San Diego. It's the most experienced, exercise-based rehabilitation program in the world. It's expensive and not covered by insurance, but my relatives, coworkers, and friends have been so generous in their prayers for my recovery and in their financial assistance that I know I can make it.
HOW YOU CAN HELP
A Catastrophic Time Bank has been set up to help John Smiley and his family during the long transition and recovery period. Any state employee or CalPERS member may donate any leave credits (except for sick time). Complete a Catastrophic Time Bank Donation Authorization (CDC 869) and submit to your personnel office.
Please indicate Officer Smiley's position number: 065-212-9662-147
A bank account has also been established to help John's family with additional and unexpected expenses. Donations can be made to:
Name: Cynthia Smiley
Institution: Bank of America
Account #: ..........
PRICELESS LITTLE LARRY
A new teacher was trying to make use of her psychology courses. She started her class by saying, 'Everyone who thinks they're stupid, stand up!' After a few seconds, Little Larry stood up. The teacher said, 'Do you think you're stupid, Larry?' 'No, ma'am, but I hate to see you standing there all by yourself!'
Larry watched, fascinated, as his mother smoothed cold cream on her face. 'Why do you do that, mommy?' he asked. 'To make myself beautiful,' said his mother, who then began removing the cream with a tissue. 'What's the matter?' asked Larry. 'Giving up?'
The math teacher saw that Larry wasn't paying attention in class. She called on him and said, 'Larry! What are 2 and 4 and 28 and 44?' Larry quickly replied, 'NBC, FOX, ESPN and the Cartoon Network!'
Larry's kindergarten class was on a field trip to their local police station where they saw pictures tacked to a bulletin board of the 10 most wanted criminals. One of the youngsters pointed to a picture and asked if it really was the photo of a wanted person. 'Yes,' said the policeman. 'The detectives want very badly to capture him.' Larry asked, 'Why didn't you keep him when you took his picture?'
Little Larry attended a horse auction with his father. He watched as his father moved from horse to horse, running his hands up and down the horse's legs and rump, and chest. After a few minutes, Larry asked, 'Dad, why are you doing that?' His father replied, 'Because when I'm buying horses, I have to make sure that they are healthy and in good shape before I buy.' Larry, looking worried, said, 'Dad, I think the UPS guy wants to buy Mom ...'
Larry watched, fascinated, as his mother smoothed cold cream on her face. 'Why do you do that, mommy?' he asked. 'To make myself beautiful,' said his mother, who then began removing the cream with a tissue. 'What's the matter?' asked Larry. 'Giving up?'
The math teacher saw that Larry wasn't paying attention in class. She called on him and said, 'Larry! What are 2 and 4 and 28 and 44?' Larry quickly replied, 'NBC, FOX, ESPN and the Cartoon Network!'
Larry's kindergarten class was on a field trip to their local police station where they saw pictures tacked to a bulletin board of the 10 most wanted criminals. One of the youngsters pointed to a picture and asked if it really was the photo of a wanted person. 'Yes,' said the policeman. 'The detectives want very badly to capture him.' Larry asked, 'Why didn't you keep him when you took his picture?'
Little Larry attended a horse auction with his father. He watched as his father moved from horse to horse, running his hands up and down the horse's legs and rump, and chest. After a few minutes, Larry asked, 'Dad, why are you doing that?' His father replied, 'Because when I'm buying horses, I have to make sure that they are healthy and in good shape before I buy.' Larry, looking worried, said, 'Dad, I think the UPS guy wants to buy Mom ...'
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
THIS SWINGER PROBABLY WON'T BE SWINGING AGAIN
This is why California is recognized as “The Land of Nuts and Fruits."
Here are some excerpts from The Sacramento Bee’s report on a nutty and failed fraudulent workers' compensation scheme:
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ACCUSED OF LYING ABOUT BEING SHOT AT S.F. SEX CLUB
By Sam Stanton
The Sacramento Bee
March 23, 2010
The story John Alfonzo Smiley told is every correctional officer's fear: He was at a San Francisco restaurant with his wife when a parolee recognized him, then gunned him down with a shot that left him paralyzed from the waist down.
Unable to work, the 44-year-old Smiley filed a workers' compensation claim that could have paid him and his wife nearly $2.5 million.
Except investigators say that isn't exactly how Smiley ended up getting shot...the altercation that led to his paralysis started at a swingers club, where he and his wife were engaging in sex with strangers and a dispute quickly escalated.
The results are five felony counts against Smiley and his wife, Cynthia Ann Biasi-Smiley, alleging the couple conspired to commit fraud...
Instead of being related to his employment, which could have made a workers' compensation claim successful, investigators say the matter began at Pacific Avenue and Kearny Street in San Francisco in the predawn hours of April 27, 2008.
At that corner was a "swingers" club named Twist, where admittance is allowed only after the owner approves an e-mail request. There is no sign out front to advertise its existence, court records state.
A $40 cover charge gets patrons admitted to a two-story complex with a dance floor, a ceiling-to-floor dance pole, a DJ and pornographic movies playing on televisions and a movie screen, court records say.
Upstairs is the "play room," where owner Ivan Stroganov told investigators the sex play would occur.
When Stroganov was asked if there would be orgies taking place he responded,
"Certainly."...He admitted there would be couples having sex in all areas of the upstairs play room.
It was here, in an area with a circular bed and a black and white couch, that the altercation occurred that night, court records state.
The Smileys arrived at midnight...met another couple, court records state, and eventually began to have sex with them...Smiley's condom broke while he was having sex with the woman, and her companion became angry...
The Smileys left and began walking to their car when Smiley heard another car pull up and the man from the club emerged with a gun, court records state. The pair began to run and Smiley was shot in the back...
San Francisco police arrived at 2:24 a.m. and the Smileys told them what had happened inside the club and after, court records state.
Smiley also told the police he didn't want to tell them "about the swingers club and hoped it would not get back to his department (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)," court records say.
Apparently, it didn't for a while.
On March 27, 2009, one month before Smiley's ability to file a workers' compensation claim would lapse, he submitted a form indicating he had been shot by a former inmate...
Here are some excerpts from The Sacramento Bee’s report on a nutty and failed fraudulent workers' compensation scheme:
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ACCUSED OF LYING ABOUT BEING SHOT AT S.F. SEX CLUB
By Sam Stanton
The Sacramento Bee
March 23, 2010
The story John Alfonzo Smiley told is every correctional officer's fear: He was at a San Francisco restaurant with his wife when a parolee recognized him, then gunned him down with a shot that left him paralyzed from the waist down.
Unable to work, the 44-year-old Smiley filed a workers' compensation claim that could have paid him and his wife nearly $2.5 million.
Except investigators say that isn't exactly how Smiley ended up getting shot...the altercation that led to his paralysis started at a swingers club, where he and his wife were engaging in sex with strangers and a dispute quickly escalated.
The results are five felony counts against Smiley and his wife, Cynthia Ann Biasi-Smiley, alleging the couple conspired to commit fraud...
Instead of being related to his employment, which could have made a workers' compensation claim successful, investigators say the matter began at Pacific Avenue and Kearny Street in San Francisco in the predawn hours of April 27, 2008.
At that corner was a "swingers" club named Twist, where admittance is allowed only after the owner approves an e-mail request. There is no sign out front to advertise its existence, court records state.
A $40 cover charge gets patrons admitted to a two-story complex with a dance floor, a ceiling-to-floor dance pole, a DJ and pornographic movies playing on televisions and a movie screen, court records say.
Upstairs is the "play room," where owner Ivan Stroganov told investigators the sex play would occur.
When Stroganov was asked if there would be orgies taking place he responded,
"Certainly."...He admitted there would be couples having sex in all areas of the upstairs play room.
It was here, in an area with a circular bed and a black and white couch, that the altercation occurred that night, court records state.
The Smileys arrived at midnight...met another couple, court records state, and eventually began to have sex with them...Smiley's condom broke while he was having sex with the woman, and her companion became angry...
The Smileys left and began walking to their car when Smiley heard another car pull up and the man from the club emerged with a gun, court records state. The pair began to run and Smiley was shot in the back...
San Francisco police arrived at 2:24 a.m. and the Smileys told them what had happened inside the club and after, court records state.
Smiley also told the police he didn't want to tell them "about the swingers club and hoped it would not get back to his department (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)," court records say.
Apparently, it didn't for a while.
On March 27, 2009, one month before Smiley's ability to file a workers' compensation claim would lapse, he submitted a form indicating he had been shot by a former inmate...
Monday, March 22, 2010
WHY WOMEN?
Eight months ago, racist and sexist graffiti was drawn o on the lockers of two women firefighters – one black, one white - inside a Houston fire station. When an investigation failed to discover who was responsible, the case was turned over to the FBI. The FBI has now reported that it could also not determine who was guilty of this offense. Obviously, there is some resentment by male firefighters against having women on the force.
I have a good friend who is a retired Houston firefighter and arson investigator. He claims that the Houston Fire Department is way ahead of the New York City Fire Department which he said had very few women on its force. To that I say: So what! Why do we have to have women firefighters in the first place? Why do we have to have women cops? Why do we have to have women serving on America’s submarines? Why? Because it’s politically correct!
Back in the 1970’s, the San Diego Police Department was under heavy criticism because it’s affirmative action program was not working. Their height standards kept Latinos and Asians out. Their intelligence entry standards kept blacks out. And their physical standards kept women out. When they lowered their minimum height requirement it still kept Latinos and Asians out, forcing them to do away with any height requirements at all. They dumbed-down their intelligence standards to accommodate black applicants and they lowered their physical standards for women applicants.
Dr. Mike Roberts, a highly regarded police psychologist, says that when you lower standards to accommodate any protected (by law) group you lower the standards for everyone and far more white males will benefit from the lowered standards than minorities and women. Dr. Roberts said that SDPD’s revised standards led to the hiring of a bunch of short, dumb, weak white male cops.
One of our military services - I think it was the U.S. Navy – had a requirement as part of its basic training program that two trainees must be able to carry a stretcher with a 150 pound weight for a specified distance and time. When hardly any of the women trainees were able to accomplish this feat, the requirement was changed to four trainees carrying one stretcher with more time allowed to accomplish that exercise.
Because only one woman – movie actress Demi Moore – has ever been able to complete the Navy Seals training program in which 75 percent of the male trainees drop out, why doesn’t the Navy lower the physically demanding standards of the Seals in order to accommodate women?
The submarine service is a gateway for the promotion to flag officer (admiral) in the navy. But do we have to spend millions of dollars retrofitting our submarines to accommodate the privacy of women just so they will have a better chance to be promoted to a captain or admiral?
Most police agencies require that their recruits possess a certain degree of physical stamina, strength and agility. That is as it should be. But many of the obstacle courses for police applicants and for police trainees have exercises with little relevance to every day police work. In my thirteen years on the streets, I can only recall two or three occasions when I had to scale a six-foot wall or fence and I never had to go hand-over-hand underneath a set of monkey bars. And since I was never on a SWAT team, I never had to climb up or down a long rope either. Those types of exercises are difficult enough for men, if not impossible for women.
My point is that as long as certain physical standards are relevant to the job, they should not be lowered just to accommodate women. And if a certain amount of intelligence – and don’t give me that crap about “common sense” – is necessary for the job, don’t lower those standards just to accommodate blacks or Latinos.
I don’t have a problem with women in the police, fire protection and military services as long as they can do the job, but don’t lower the entry level standards just so we can hire a bunch of ‘broads.’ (Man, are the feminists going to jump all over me for using that term.) For the most part, our police and fire protection services can function just fine without any women cops or firefighters. And our submarines can operate very well with out any women being aboard. But then all of that is politically incorrect.
I have a good friend who is a retired Houston firefighter and arson investigator. He claims that the Houston Fire Department is way ahead of the New York City Fire Department which he said had very few women on its force. To that I say: So what! Why do we have to have women firefighters in the first place? Why do we have to have women cops? Why do we have to have women serving on America’s submarines? Why? Because it’s politically correct!
Back in the 1970’s, the San Diego Police Department was under heavy criticism because it’s affirmative action program was not working. Their height standards kept Latinos and Asians out. Their intelligence entry standards kept blacks out. And their physical standards kept women out. When they lowered their minimum height requirement it still kept Latinos and Asians out, forcing them to do away with any height requirements at all. They dumbed-down their intelligence standards to accommodate black applicants and they lowered their physical standards for women applicants.
Dr. Mike Roberts, a highly regarded police psychologist, says that when you lower standards to accommodate any protected (by law) group you lower the standards for everyone and far more white males will benefit from the lowered standards than minorities and women. Dr. Roberts said that SDPD’s revised standards led to the hiring of a bunch of short, dumb, weak white male cops.
One of our military services - I think it was the U.S. Navy – had a requirement as part of its basic training program that two trainees must be able to carry a stretcher with a 150 pound weight for a specified distance and time. When hardly any of the women trainees were able to accomplish this feat, the requirement was changed to four trainees carrying one stretcher with more time allowed to accomplish that exercise.
Because only one woman – movie actress Demi Moore – has ever been able to complete the Navy Seals training program in which 75 percent of the male trainees drop out, why doesn’t the Navy lower the physically demanding standards of the Seals in order to accommodate women?
The submarine service is a gateway for the promotion to flag officer (admiral) in the navy. But do we have to spend millions of dollars retrofitting our submarines to accommodate the privacy of women just so they will have a better chance to be promoted to a captain or admiral?
Most police agencies require that their recruits possess a certain degree of physical stamina, strength and agility. That is as it should be. But many of the obstacle courses for police applicants and for police trainees have exercises with little relevance to every day police work. In my thirteen years on the streets, I can only recall two or three occasions when I had to scale a six-foot wall or fence and I never had to go hand-over-hand underneath a set of monkey bars. And since I was never on a SWAT team, I never had to climb up or down a long rope either. Those types of exercises are difficult enough for men, if not impossible for women.
My point is that as long as certain physical standards are relevant to the job, they should not be lowered just to accommodate women. And if a certain amount of intelligence – and don’t give me that crap about “common sense” – is necessary for the job, don’t lower those standards just to accommodate blacks or Latinos.
I don’t have a problem with women in the police, fire protection and military services as long as they can do the job, but don’t lower the entry level standards just so we can hire a bunch of ‘broads.’ (Man, are the feminists going to jump all over me for using that term.) For the most part, our police and fire protection services can function just fine without any women cops or firefighters. And our submarines can operate very well with out any women being aboard. But then all of that is politically incorrect.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
IDENTITY THEFT ALERT
There is a new web site that makes it easy for anyone to steal your identity. All they need to know is your name and address.
It is a web site of Driver's Licenses that is an Identity Theft waiting to happen. Now you can see anyone's Driver's License on the Internet, including your own. I just searched for mine and there it was...picture and all.
Go to the web site, and check it out. Just enter your name, city and state to see yours on file.
Fortlunately, there is a way to remove your license from this site. After it comes up on the screen, click the box marked "Please Remove." This will remove your license from public viewing, but not from law enforcement.
Notify your friends immediately so they can protect themselves too. They will appreciate it.
http://www.license.shorturl.com/
It is a web site of Driver's Licenses that is an Identity Theft waiting to happen. Now you can see anyone's Driver's License on the Internet, including your own. I just searched for mine and there it was...picture and all.
Go to the web site, and check it out. Just enter your name, city and state to see yours on file.
Fortlunately, there is a way to remove your license from this site. After it comes up on the screen, click the box marked "Please Remove." This will remove your license from public viewing, but not from law enforcement.
Notify your friends immediately so they can protect themselves too. They will appreciate it.
http://www.license.shorturl.com/
DELAY THIS EXECUTION
If you’ve been reading my blogs, you know that I am a strong supporter of and an advocate for the death penalty. I am convinced that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to premeditated murders and killings done during the commission of a robbery, rape, burglary or other type of felony.
Of course, I do not want to see an innocent person executed, something that rarely ever happens. So, when I read an editorial on the pending execution of Henry Skinner in yesterday’s Houston Chronicle, I had to come down on the side of those wanting to delay his execution to allow for DNA testing.
I detest those last minute appeals that are filed for someone who has had numerous prior appeals heard while he’s been on death row for 10, 20 or more years. But in Skinner’s case, this is not the first appeal asking for DNA testing. I fail to understand why the State was so adamant in its refusal to grant that request.
Here is the Chronicle’s editorial:
IT’S BEST TO TEST
DNA could prove a death row convict innocent. Let’s test it while he’s alive
Houston Chonicle
March 20, 2010
Henry Skinner is scheduled to be executed Wednesday for a crime that he says he didn't commit. And DNA evidence, still untested, might show that Texas has the wrong man.
Skinner is no angel. He's always maintained that on New Year's Eve 1993 he passed out, drunk and high on codeine, in the Pampa house where he lived with his girlfriend and her two grown sons. When he woke up, he says, he found their bodies.
Twila Busby had been strangled and bashed in the head with an ax handle. Her sons had been stabbed.
In 1995, a Gray County jury convicted Skinner of the murders, and he was sentenced to death.
Maybe the jury was right. Maybe he's guilty. But the Medill Innocence Project maintains that Skinner was railroaded, and its researchers point to a raft of reasons to doubt his guilt. The evidence against him is circumstantial. Though physical evidence links him to the crime scene — where he admits to being — it doesn't link him to the murder weapons or the murders themselves. He had no obvious motive. And the state's star witness has recanted, saying that authorities pressured her to testify that he made incriminating statements before his arrest.
Toxicology tests made after his arrest showed that his blood contained enough alcohol and codeine to leave most people comatose or near death. Even a hardened drinker like Skinner would have had difficulty standing, much less killing three people.
Worse, at the trial, Skinner's defense lawyer failed to present evidence about another plausible suspect: Busby's knife-carrying uncle, Robert Donnell (now dead). Busby confided to a friend that Donnell once tried to rape her. And on the night of the killings he was heard making crude remarks to her at a party. She left nervous, and Donnell left soon after.
At the crime scene, a windbreaker that looked like Donnell's lay next to Busby's body.
Skinner's appeals lawyer, Rob Owen of the University of Texas Capital Punishment Center, has called for DNA testing that could place Donnell at the scene of the crime.
Among the items that could be tested are a rape kit; Busby's fingernail clippings; two bloody knives; and the windbreaker. But those tests haven't been done.
We desperately hope that either the U.S. Supreme Court or Gov. Rick Perry will stay Skinner's execution long enough to run the DNA tests.
Before sending a man to die, we need to be absolutely sure of his guilt.
Of course, I do not want to see an innocent person executed, something that rarely ever happens. So, when I read an editorial on the pending execution of Henry Skinner in yesterday’s Houston Chronicle, I had to come down on the side of those wanting to delay his execution to allow for DNA testing.
I detest those last minute appeals that are filed for someone who has had numerous prior appeals heard while he’s been on death row for 10, 20 or more years. But in Skinner’s case, this is not the first appeal asking for DNA testing. I fail to understand why the State was so adamant in its refusal to grant that request.
Here is the Chronicle’s editorial:
IT’S BEST TO TEST
DNA could prove a death row convict innocent. Let’s test it while he’s alive
Houston Chonicle
March 20, 2010
Henry Skinner is scheduled to be executed Wednesday for a crime that he says he didn't commit. And DNA evidence, still untested, might show that Texas has the wrong man.
Skinner is no angel. He's always maintained that on New Year's Eve 1993 he passed out, drunk and high on codeine, in the Pampa house where he lived with his girlfriend and her two grown sons. When he woke up, he says, he found their bodies.
Twila Busby had been strangled and bashed in the head with an ax handle. Her sons had been stabbed.
In 1995, a Gray County jury convicted Skinner of the murders, and he was sentenced to death.
Maybe the jury was right. Maybe he's guilty. But the Medill Innocence Project maintains that Skinner was railroaded, and its researchers point to a raft of reasons to doubt his guilt. The evidence against him is circumstantial. Though physical evidence links him to the crime scene — where he admits to being — it doesn't link him to the murder weapons or the murders themselves. He had no obvious motive. And the state's star witness has recanted, saying that authorities pressured her to testify that he made incriminating statements before his arrest.
Toxicology tests made after his arrest showed that his blood contained enough alcohol and codeine to leave most people comatose or near death. Even a hardened drinker like Skinner would have had difficulty standing, much less killing three people.
Worse, at the trial, Skinner's defense lawyer failed to present evidence about another plausible suspect: Busby's knife-carrying uncle, Robert Donnell (now dead). Busby confided to a friend that Donnell once tried to rape her. And on the night of the killings he was heard making crude remarks to her at a party. She left nervous, and Donnell left soon after.
At the crime scene, a windbreaker that looked like Donnell's lay next to Busby's body.
Skinner's appeals lawyer, Rob Owen of the University of Texas Capital Punishment Center, has called for DNA testing that could place Donnell at the scene of the crime.
Among the items that could be tested are a rape kit; Busby's fingernail clippings; two bloody knives; and the windbreaker. But those tests haven't been done.
We desperately hope that either the U.S. Supreme Court or Gov. Rick Perry will stay Skinner's execution long enough to run the DNA tests.
Before sending a man to die, we need to be absolutely sure of his guilt.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
WHAT'S IN A NAME
The radical-left likes to recruit its members in academia because each college campus is a barrel full of young idealistic students ripe for the picking as they are being seduced by Marxist professors. Radical-left organizations operate under idealistic names.
There are plenty of events in the world which can be construed as a violation of human rights. There is the genocide in the Congo, Rwanda, the Sudan and other African nations; there are those LA cops always strumming some asshole gang member’s head; there is the torture of terrorist detainees; etc. And, of course, there is always that bully Israel oppressing those poor Palestinians with security fences, roadblocks, teargas, rubber bullets and military force just because they are trying to get back the lands which were stolen from them by those damn Jews.
Since most everyone supports human rights, the radical-left attracts its membership by including the words “human rights” in the name of their organizations. Those sending in their contributions to or actively participating in these groups are often unaware that the organization they are joining is more interested in causing trouble for governments that do not adhere to a far-left ideology than they are in fighting for human rights. Here are four such radical-left organizations:
Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights Campaign
Human Rights First
Physicians for Human Rights
“Solidarity,” “peace” and “workers” are other buzz words used by the far-left in the names of their organizations. Back in the heyday of the Soviet Union we used to call these groups “communist-front” organizations because they were bankrolled out of Moscow.
A good example is the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee. This is a group founded by David and Rona Smith. He is a professor at College of the Mainland in Texas City where I taught for 23 years. She is a public school counselor. Both are avowed Marxists. David Smith has enticed his students into joining their organization. This group ventures to Houston to lead or participate in anti-war and pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
Joining these organizations can sometimes lead to tragic consequences. Rachel Corrie, a young American, joined the International Solidarity Movement and lost her life when she tried to stop an Israeli army bulldozer from destroying the house of a terrorist in the Gaza Strip.
So here is a bit of advise for all you parents with kids in college. Show a close interest in their extra-curricular activities. If they express an interest in organizations with certain words – human rights, solidarity, peace, workers - in their names, they have been seduced by someone from the far-left. If they become “activists” in these groups, they may end up in jail, in a hospital, and possibly in a funeral parlor.
There are plenty of events in the world which can be construed as a violation of human rights. There is the genocide in the Congo, Rwanda, the Sudan and other African nations; there are those LA cops always strumming some asshole gang member’s head; there is the torture of terrorist detainees; etc. And, of course, there is always that bully Israel oppressing those poor Palestinians with security fences, roadblocks, teargas, rubber bullets and military force just because they are trying to get back the lands which were stolen from them by those damn Jews.
Since most everyone supports human rights, the radical-left attracts its membership by including the words “human rights” in the name of their organizations. Those sending in their contributions to or actively participating in these groups are often unaware that the organization they are joining is more interested in causing trouble for governments that do not adhere to a far-left ideology than they are in fighting for human rights. Here are four such radical-left organizations:
Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights Campaign
Human Rights First
Physicians for Human Rights
“Solidarity,” “peace” and “workers” are other buzz words used by the far-left in the names of their organizations. Back in the heyday of the Soviet Union we used to call these groups “communist-front” organizations because they were bankrolled out of Moscow.
A good example is the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee. This is a group founded by David and Rona Smith. He is a professor at College of the Mainland in Texas City where I taught for 23 years. She is a public school counselor. Both are avowed Marxists. David Smith has enticed his students into joining their organization. This group ventures to Houston to lead or participate in anti-war and pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
Joining these organizations can sometimes lead to tragic consequences. Rachel Corrie, a young American, joined the International Solidarity Movement and lost her life when she tried to stop an Israeli army bulldozer from destroying the house of a terrorist in the Gaza Strip.
So here is a bit of advise for all you parents with kids in college. Show a close interest in their extra-curricular activities. If they express an interest in organizations with certain words – human rights, solidarity, peace, workers - in their names, they have been seduced by someone from the far-left. If they become “activists” in these groups, they may end up in jail, in a hospital, and possibly in a funeral parlor.
OBAMA'S ARROGANCE SHOWS THROUGH IN HIS TREATMENT OF ISRAEL
Why is it that only conservatives defend Israel while liberals keep condemning every action it takes to survive as an independent state? Does the Obama administration have a right to treat Israel like a vassal state, instead of a sovereign nation, because of the $3 billion a year in military aid it receives from the United States? By the way, Israel is required to spend at least three-quarters of that aid by purchasing military hardware from U.S. companies, thus channeling most of that money back into the American economy.
THIS IS A NON-ARROGANT FOREIGN POLICY?
by Mona Charen
Townhall.com
March 19, 2010
Funny, President Obama was supposed to be against an arrogant foreign policy. Remember his speech in Strasbourg, France last spring? There had been times, he told the European students, "where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Those days are over, he assured them.
Leave aside the question as to whether this characterization of past American arrogance was justified. President Obama now has a year of foreign policy under his belt and in that time he has managed to snub the British prime minister, alienate the president of France, insult the nation of Honduras when it successfully defended its young democracy from a Chavez wannabe, and undercut the people of the Czech Republic and Poland by tossing aside a hard-won agreement to build a missile defense shield.
But in no case has his own arrogance been more transparent than in his treatment of Israel. It didn't begin with the recent spat over housing units in Jerusalem. In formulating his policy, the president could have focused his energy on the problem of a terror regime racing toward acquisition of nuclear bombs. He could have noticed the civil war raging between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. He might have addressed the venomous anti-Semitism and race hatred offered as daily fare in Palestinian media and textbooks.
But from its inception, this administration has signaled that it regards Israeli behavior as the chief obstacle to peace in the region. Israel must halt settlements, the president told Prime Minister Netanyahu, or the relationship between the U.S. and Israel would suffer. Seeing the United States acting as its lawyer, the Palestinian Authority, which in the past had negotiated with Israel without preconditions, could not then set the bar lower than the U.S. president.
Though it received little attention at the time, Obama's rebuke of Israel at the United Nations last October was, particularly in that venue, a deeply unfriendly act. "We continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," the president intoned. As former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton noted at the time, the use of the phrase "continued" rather than "new" potentially delegitimized every inch of land on which Jews reside. That nuance would not have been lost on the Palestinians, who regard all of Israel as "occupied territory."
Even stipulating that the announcement of new construction in Ramat Shlomo was ill timed, the president's response was extraordinary. Despite the fact that Netanyahu apologized for the bureaucratic gaffe, the president very publicly instructed his secretary of state to call Netanyahu two days later to scold him further -- a task the secretary of state apparently fulfilled with gusto.
So while the Obama administration extends its "open hand" to the butchers of Tehran (even after the hand is repeatedly slapped), and truckles to the regime in Syria, it upbraids Israel.
Choosing to excoriate Israel on the matter of these apartments speaks volumes about the president's view of the conflict in general. The president's outrage is highly selective. Two months before Vice President Biden's visit, Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the PA, attended a "birthday celebration" for the "martyr" Dalal Mughrabi. Mughrabi led 11 terrorists who carried out the 1978 "coastal road" attack, the worst terror attack in Israel's history. Coming ashore near the northern Israeli city of Haifa, Mughrabi and her heavily armed team hijacked two busses filled with tourists, forced all 71 into one bus, and attempted to take it to Tel Aviv. Along the way, they machine-gunned motorists and some of the passengers. Bodies were dumped on the highway. When police finally stopped the bus by shooting out the tires, the terrorists killed as many people as they could (37, including 13 children) and set the bus aflame before being killed themselves.
The day after the vice president departed the region, a square was named for Mughrabi near Ramallah. Tawfiq Tirawi, a member of the Fatah Central Committee (the PA's predecessor organization), told the crowd, "We are all Dalal Mughrabi." Mughrabi is celebrated in other ways as well. Palestinian Media Watch reports that in the past two years, the PA has named two girls high schools, a soccer match, two summer camps, and a computer center after the "martyr."
To get a sense of the true nature of the conflict, the president need do no more than watch kids' television in the Palestinian areas. On the PA program "Chicks," children are encouraged to "explore your country" with a map that shows the entire nation of Israel labeled "Palestine."
Awaiting the secretary of state's outraged call to Abbas.
THIS IS A NON-ARROGANT FOREIGN POLICY?
by Mona Charen
Townhall.com
March 19, 2010
Funny, President Obama was supposed to be against an arrogant foreign policy. Remember his speech in Strasbourg, France last spring? There had been times, he told the European students, "where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Those days are over, he assured them.
Leave aside the question as to whether this characterization of past American arrogance was justified. President Obama now has a year of foreign policy under his belt and in that time he has managed to snub the British prime minister, alienate the president of France, insult the nation of Honduras when it successfully defended its young democracy from a Chavez wannabe, and undercut the people of the Czech Republic and Poland by tossing aside a hard-won agreement to build a missile defense shield.
But in no case has his own arrogance been more transparent than in his treatment of Israel. It didn't begin with the recent spat over housing units in Jerusalem. In formulating his policy, the president could have focused his energy on the problem of a terror regime racing toward acquisition of nuclear bombs. He could have noticed the civil war raging between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. He might have addressed the venomous anti-Semitism and race hatred offered as daily fare in Palestinian media and textbooks.
But from its inception, this administration has signaled that it regards Israeli behavior as the chief obstacle to peace in the region. Israel must halt settlements, the president told Prime Minister Netanyahu, or the relationship between the U.S. and Israel would suffer. Seeing the United States acting as its lawyer, the Palestinian Authority, which in the past had negotiated with Israel without preconditions, could not then set the bar lower than the U.S. president.
Though it received little attention at the time, Obama's rebuke of Israel at the United Nations last October was, particularly in that venue, a deeply unfriendly act. "We continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," the president intoned. As former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton noted at the time, the use of the phrase "continued" rather than "new" potentially delegitimized every inch of land on which Jews reside. That nuance would not have been lost on the Palestinians, who regard all of Israel as "occupied territory."
Even stipulating that the announcement of new construction in Ramat Shlomo was ill timed, the president's response was extraordinary. Despite the fact that Netanyahu apologized for the bureaucratic gaffe, the president very publicly instructed his secretary of state to call Netanyahu two days later to scold him further -- a task the secretary of state apparently fulfilled with gusto.
So while the Obama administration extends its "open hand" to the butchers of Tehran (even after the hand is repeatedly slapped), and truckles to the regime in Syria, it upbraids Israel.
Choosing to excoriate Israel on the matter of these apartments speaks volumes about the president's view of the conflict in general. The president's outrage is highly selective. Two months before Vice President Biden's visit, Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the PA, attended a "birthday celebration" for the "martyr" Dalal Mughrabi. Mughrabi led 11 terrorists who carried out the 1978 "coastal road" attack, the worst terror attack in Israel's history. Coming ashore near the northern Israeli city of Haifa, Mughrabi and her heavily armed team hijacked two busses filled with tourists, forced all 71 into one bus, and attempted to take it to Tel Aviv. Along the way, they machine-gunned motorists and some of the passengers. Bodies were dumped on the highway. When police finally stopped the bus by shooting out the tires, the terrorists killed as many people as they could (37, including 13 children) and set the bus aflame before being killed themselves.
The day after the vice president departed the region, a square was named for Mughrabi near Ramallah. Tawfiq Tirawi, a member of the Fatah Central Committee (the PA's predecessor organization), told the crowd, "We are all Dalal Mughrabi." Mughrabi is celebrated in other ways as well. Palestinian Media Watch reports that in the past two years, the PA has named two girls high schools, a soccer match, two summer camps, and a computer center after the "martyr."
To get a sense of the true nature of the conflict, the president need do no more than watch kids' television in the Palestinian areas. On the PA program "Chicks," children are encouraged to "explore your country" with a map that shows the entire nation of Israel labeled "Palestine."
Awaiting the secretary of state's outraged call to Abbas.
Friday, March 19, 2010
OBAMA HAS LITTLE PATIENCE FOR THIS PESKY JEWISH STATE THAT BRAZENLY INSISTS ON ITS RIGHT TO EXIST
“In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel.”
HOW OBAMA CREATED THE BIDEN INCIDENT
By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
March 19, 2010
Why did President Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations?
And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in Israel's Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject, and you don't bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest.
But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a 10-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem.
Nor was the offense intentional. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not know about this move -- step four in a seven-step approval process for construction that, at best, will not even start for two to three years.
Nonetheless the prime minister is responsible. He apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.
The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.
Clinton's spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.
Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace -- literally dying for peace -- since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)
Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton's own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu's defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.
In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a "peace process" -- now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state -- the point of which is to extract preemptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.
Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its gross domestic product is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called "unprecedented."
What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.
Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel. That's why the Obama administration has to resort to "proximity talks" -- a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat's groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.
And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?
Now that's an insult.
So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies -- therefore Israel shouldn't take it personally (according to Robert Kagan)? Because Obama wants to bring down the current Israeli coalition government (according to Jeffrey Goldberg)?
Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world -- and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that brazenly insists on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its ancient, historical and now present capital?
Who knows? Perhaps we should ask those Obama acolytes who assured the 63 percent of Americans who support Israel -- at least 97 percent of those supporters, mind you, are non-Jews -- about candidate Obama's abiding commitment to Israel.
HOW OBAMA CREATED THE BIDEN INCIDENT
By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
March 19, 2010
Why did President Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations?
And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in Israel's Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject, and you don't bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest.
But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a 10-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem.
Nor was the offense intentional. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not know about this move -- step four in a seven-step approval process for construction that, at best, will not even start for two to three years.
Nonetheless the prime minister is responsible. He apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.
The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.
Clinton's spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.
Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace -- literally dying for peace -- since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)
Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton's own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu's defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.
In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a "peace process" -- now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state -- the point of which is to extract preemptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.
Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its gross domestic product is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called "unprecedented."
What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.
Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel. That's why the Obama administration has to resort to "proximity talks" -- a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat's groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.
And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?
Now that's an insult.
So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies -- therefore Israel shouldn't take it personally (according to Robert Kagan)? Because Obama wants to bring down the current Israeli coalition government (according to Jeffrey Goldberg)?
Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world -- and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that brazenly insists on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its ancient, historical and now present capital?
Who knows? Perhaps we should ask those Obama acolytes who assured the 63 percent of Americans who support Israel -- at least 97 percent of those supporters, mind you, are non-Jews -- about candidate Obama's abiding commitment to Israel.
A WALMART HIGH
HOW TO GET A RUSH IN THE PINEY WOODS WITHOUT USING METH
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
March 19, 2010
You know what's boring? Babysitting two kids while schlepping around your own two kids, that's what's boring.
A gal with joie de vivre needs a little excitement at such times. What to do? Duh -- You leave the kids in the pick-up truck (engine running, of course), head into the Walmart and do a little shoplifting.
The thrill of stuffing panties "and other miscellaneous items" in your pants...Well, as Rick James would put it, it's a helluva drug.
At least that's the explanation allegedly offered by Karen Annette Diehl, 28, from Lumberton in East Texas. The Silsbee Bee is on the case (hat tip to the Bayou), and says Lumberton police picked her up after she was caught on the extensive security-camera system every Walmart has. (Adds to the shoplifting excitement, we guess.)
Sayeth the Bee: "When Diehl was arrested by the Lumberton Police Department, she told an officer the reason that she had shoplifted was because a friend had told her 'it was a rush.'"
She's in the meth-ridden Piney Woods and the best advice she has on how to get a rush is to shoplift at Walmart? We're not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.
Police said Diehl spent a half-hour in the store, while the four kids -- ages two, three, four and six -- waiting in the idling pick-up truck outside. The local CPS is investigating, the Bee said.
Lumberton police chief Danny Sullins offered some astute analysis:
"People should not have to be reminded not to leave their babies in the car," said Sullins. "This is Texas. God has given us all common sense. Folks should use that common sense and not leave babies in the car, especially when you're going into a store and stealing and committing crimes with their children with them. You like to think that people have better sense than that."
Sullins also said that Wal Mart is the last place that he would think people would steal from. "They have a well trained loss prevention team and a great security camera network there," he said. "That works very well for police departments. Not only do we have a loss prevention person who spots them and witnesses the crime, but they also capture the crime on videotape and they do prosecute. That's the last place I'd steal from."
We've seen too many Tea Parties to agree wholeheartedly with the "This is Texas. God has given us all common sense" pronouncement, but we heartily endorse his advice to aspiring criminals as to what places to avoid.
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
March 19, 2010
You know what's boring? Babysitting two kids while schlepping around your own two kids, that's what's boring.
A gal with joie de vivre needs a little excitement at such times. What to do? Duh -- You leave the kids in the pick-up truck (engine running, of course), head into the Walmart and do a little shoplifting.
The thrill of stuffing panties "and other miscellaneous items" in your pants...Well, as Rick James would put it, it's a helluva drug.
At least that's the explanation allegedly offered by Karen Annette Diehl, 28, from Lumberton in East Texas. The Silsbee Bee is on the case (hat tip to the Bayou), and says Lumberton police picked her up after she was caught on the extensive security-camera system every Walmart has. (Adds to the shoplifting excitement, we guess.)
Sayeth the Bee: "When Diehl was arrested by the Lumberton Police Department, she told an officer the reason that she had shoplifted was because a friend had told her 'it was a rush.'"
She's in the meth-ridden Piney Woods and the best advice she has on how to get a rush is to shoplift at Walmart? We're not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.
Police said Diehl spent a half-hour in the store, while the four kids -- ages two, three, four and six -- waiting in the idling pick-up truck outside. The local CPS is investigating, the Bee said.
Lumberton police chief Danny Sullins offered some astute analysis:
"People should not have to be reminded not to leave their babies in the car," said Sullins. "This is Texas. God has given us all common sense. Folks should use that common sense and not leave babies in the car, especially when you're going into a store and stealing and committing crimes with their children with them. You like to think that people have better sense than that."
Sullins also said that Wal Mart is the last place that he would think people would steal from. "They have a well trained loss prevention team and a great security camera network there," he said. "That works very well for police departments. Not only do we have a loss prevention person who spots them and witnesses the crime, but they also capture the crime on videotape and they do prosecute. That's the last place I'd steal from."
We've seen too many Tea Parties to agree wholeheartedly with the "This is Texas. God has given us all common sense" pronouncement, but we heartily endorse his advice to aspiring criminals as to what places to avoid.
WITH FRIENDS LIKE JOE BIDEN, ISRAEL DOESN'T NEED ANY ENEMIES (2)
In “With Friends Like Joe Biden, Israel Doesn’t Need Any Enemies” (3-17-10) it was alleged that both Vice President Joe Biden and General David Petraeus had stated that Israel’s actions in its conflict with the Palestinians were endangering the lives of American soldiers. According to Yediot Acharonot, in response to the announcement that Israel was going to build 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, Biden “reportedly” said that to Prime Minister Netanyahu. And Mark Perry, a correspondent for Foreign Policy, wrote that Gen. Petraeus blamed Israel for casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan in a report to the Pentagon.
Well, according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, it turns out that Biden never said any such thing to Netanyahu. That was a deliberate lie planted by Yediot Acharonot, a far-left publication that has vociferously opposed every action ever taken against the Palestinians by a moderate or conservative Israeli government. Yediot Acharonot is the voice of Israel’s left which acts as a “Fifth Column” for the Palestinians.
And what about Gen. Petraeus’ report? Mark Perry, a former advisor to Yasser Arafat, has been a long-time mouthpiece for the Palestinians. In “The Petraeus Briefing; Biden's Embarrassment is not the Whole Story,” an article in Foreign Policy, Perry repeated the Yediot Acharonot lie and then embellished it by adding that Gen. Petraeus had reported to the Pentagon that Israel was to blame for American casualties. The general never said anything like that. What he reported was that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a threat to Middle East stability and that our support for Israel damaged America’s interests in the Arab world, facts long ago established.
Perry deliberately planted his lies on behalf of the Palestinians. America’s media immediately seized on Perry’s story without ever checking on whether it was true or not. The TV network talking heads asked every government official they could find to comment on the charges that Israel was endangering the lives of American soldiers. The media has to be well aware that if these charges ever gained traction with the American people, the tide of public opinion would turn against the Israelis.
Surprise, surprise - the American media has not reported that Biden and Gen. Petraeus never said Israel was endangering the lives of our soldiers.
No one in the Obama administration other than Rahm Emanuel has refuted those lies. The pro-Palestinian element in the Obama administration, and that includes President Obama himself, must have done cartwheels when these lies were being passed around by the media. Biden, being a loyal Obama soldier, has not refuted the lies. Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod, a Jew himself, would not refute them, saying only that “I’m not going to get into that.” Hillary ‘The Hun’ Clinton treated Israel like a vassal state by demanding that any plans to build 1,600 new housing units be rescinded and that Israel must make other concessions to the Palestinians.
Make no mistake about it, the Obama administration speaks with a forked tongue when, over and over again, it expresses its undying support for Israel’s security. In fact, it is doing everything it can to undermine Israel’s security by pressuring the Jewish state to make concessions to the Palestinians who continue to vow that there will be only one state, a Palestinian state, “from the river to the sea.”
And until the vice president comes out and publicly states that Israel’s actions do not endanger the lives of American soldiers, I am not going to change the title, “With Friends Like Joe Biden, Israel doesn’t need any enemies.”
Well, according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, it turns out that Biden never said any such thing to Netanyahu. That was a deliberate lie planted by Yediot Acharonot, a far-left publication that has vociferously opposed every action ever taken against the Palestinians by a moderate or conservative Israeli government. Yediot Acharonot is the voice of Israel’s left which acts as a “Fifth Column” for the Palestinians.
And what about Gen. Petraeus’ report? Mark Perry, a former advisor to Yasser Arafat, has been a long-time mouthpiece for the Palestinians. In “The Petraeus Briefing; Biden's Embarrassment is not the Whole Story,” an article in Foreign Policy, Perry repeated the Yediot Acharonot lie and then embellished it by adding that Gen. Petraeus had reported to the Pentagon that Israel was to blame for American casualties. The general never said anything like that. What he reported was that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a threat to Middle East stability and that our support for Israel damaged America’s interests in the Arab world, facts long ago established.
Perry deliberately planted his lies on behalf of the Palestinians. America’s media immediately seized on Perry’s story without ever checking on whether it was true or not. The TV network talking heads asked every government official they could find to comment on the charges that Israel was endangering the lives of American soldiers. The media has to be well aware that if these charges ever gained traction with the American people, the tide of public opinion would turn against the Israelis.
Surprise, surprise - the American media has not reported that Biden and Gen. Petraeus never said Israel was endangering the lives of our soldiers.
No one in the Obama administration other than Rahm Emanuel has refuted those lies. The pro-Palestinian element in the Obama administration, and that includes President Obama himself, must have done cartwheels when these lies were being passed around by the media. Biden, being a loyal Obama soldier, has not refuted the lies. Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod, a Jew himself, would not refute them, saying only that “I’m not going to get into that.” Hillary ‘The Hun’ Clinton treated Israel like a vassal state by demanding that any plans to build 1,600 new housing units be rescinded and that Israel must make other concessions to the Palestinians.
Make no mistake about it, the Obama administration speaks with a forked tongue when, over and over again, it expresses its undying support for Israel’s security. In fact, it is doing everything it can to undermine Israel’s security by pressuring the Jewish state to make concessions to the Palestinians who continue to vow that there will be only one state, a Palestinian state, “from the river to the sea.”
And until the vice president comes out and publicly states that Israel’s actions do not endanger the lives of American soldiers, I am not going to change the title, “With Friends Like Joe Biden, Israel doesn’t need any enemies.”
Thursday, March 18, 2010
HILLARY THE HUN
MOVING PAST HILLARY
by Emmett Tyrrell
Townhall.com
March 18, 2010
WASHINGTON -- Historians someday will piece together precisely what happened in Jerusalem last week when Vice President Joe Biden visited Israel to encourage renewed negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinians. Of a sudden, an announcement that Israel was proceeding with the construction of a small number of residential units -- 1,600 in a section of Jerusalem with more than 400,000 inhabitants, roughly 181,500 being Jewish and 229,000 being Muslim -- was interpreted as a slap in the face to the United States. Historians will have to decide whether this was an Israeli insult to Washington. Or was it a low-level bureaucratic announcement, long in the works, that assumed undue significance owing to Biden's visit? Or were partisan forces within Israel or perhaps within the Obama administration manipulating the story? Other possibilities can be conjured with.
What strikes me immediately, however, is the dangerous furor that followed. It could have been avoided. As he was leaving Israel late Friday, March 12, the American vice president already had made his displeasure clear. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had apologized after insisting that the announcement had been made at a low level in his government and was not meant as a provocation. The good-natured American Biden appeared propitiated.
Then ka-pow! Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned Netanyahu and raised hell for 43 minutes. Those of us who have followed her singular career know that Clinton's language can be dangerously unrestrained when she loses her temper, as has most recently been reported in "Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime." I hope she did not use the kind of language she used on campaign staffers in her presidential campaign, much less the billingsgate she uses on her goatish husband. Whatever she said, tensions between the United States and Israel, according to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, reached an intensity not experienced in more than three decades. Within days of her phone call, young Palestinians were emboldened to violence throughout Jerusalem -- again, tension not experienced in years and, in this case, quite bloody tension.
It is increasingly apparent that our secretary of state is better equipped to be secretary of war in some faraway land in some faraway time when war was not the dangerous threat to world peace that it is today. Frankly, President Barack Obama had better choices to serve as his secretary of state, for instance, the more experienced Biden. Truth be known, Secretary Clinton has heated up hostilities elsewhere during her short tenure.
When she was recently in Argentina -- either from ignorance or after being manipulated by the Argentine president, Cristina Kirchner -- Clinton used the Argentines' name, "Malvinas," for the contested islands our British allies call "the Falklands," leaving the impression at a news conference that the United States is neutral in this dispute, a dispute that has cost nearly a thousand lives. The British press was furious. Honduran friends of the United States were equally furious when Hillary took the side of Hugo Chavez's stooge, deposed President Manuel Zelaya, in the controversy he created by illegally attempting to remain in office.
by Emmett Tyrrell
Townhall.com
March 18, 2010
WASHINGTON -- Historians someday will piece together precisely what happened in Jerusalem last week when Vice President Joe Biden visited Israel to encourage renewed negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinians. Of a sudden, an announcement that Israel was proceeding with the construction of a small number of residential units -- 1,600 in a section of Jerusalem with more than 400,000 inhabitants, roughly 181,500 being Jewish and 229,000 being Muslim -- was interpreted as a slap in the face to the United States. Historians will have to decide whether this was an Israeli insult to Washington. Or was it a low-level bureaucratic announcement, long in the works, that assumed undue significance owing to Biden's visit? Or were partisan forces within Israel or perhaps within the Obama administration manipulating the story? Other possibilities can be conjured with.
What strikes me immediately, however, is the dangerous furor that followed. It could have been avoided. As he was leaving Israel late Friday, March 12, the American vice president already had made his displeasure clear. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had apologized after insisting that the announcement had been made at a low level in his government and was not meant as a provocation. The good-natured American Biden appeared propitiated.
Then ka-pow! Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned Netanyahu and raised hell for 43 minutes. Those of us who have followed her singular career know that Clinton's language can be dangerously unrestrained when she loses her temper, as has most recently been reported in "Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime." I hope she did not use the kind of language she used on campaign staffers in her presidential campaign, much less the billingsgate she uses on her goatish husband. Whatever she said, tensions between the United States and Israel, according to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, reached an intensity not experienced in more than three decades. Within days of her phone call, young Palestinians were emboldened to violence throughout Jerusalem -- again, tension not experienced in years and, in this case, quite bloody tension.
It is increasingly apparent that our secretary of state is better equipped to be secretary of war in some faraway land in some faraway time when war was not the dangerous threat to world peace that it is today. Frankly, President Barack Obama had better choices to serve as his secretary of state, for instance, the more experienced Biden. Truth be known, Secretary Clinton has heated up hostilities elsewhere during her short tenure.
When she was recently in Argentina -- either from ignorance or after being manipulated by the Argentine president, Cristina Kirchner -- Clinton used the Argentines' name, "Malvinas," for the contested islands our British allies call "the Falklands," leaving the impression at a news conference that the United States is neutral in this dispute, a dispute that has cost nearly a thousand lives. The British press was furious. Honduran friends of the United States were equally furious when Hillary took the side of Hugo Chavez's stooge, deposed President Manuel Zelaya, in the controversy he created by illegally attempting to remain in office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)