Everywhere President Obama went during his sojourn to the G20 conference, to NATO, to the European Union, to the Czech Republic and to Turkey, he apologized on behalf of the United States for past Bush Administration policies. At the G20 conference he bowed to Saudi King Abdullah. He told the Europenas: "There have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Obama also told the Turkish parliament that America "is not and never will be at war with Islam." That sure sounds sort of like an apology for some of the Bush administration's post-9/11 anti-terrorism policies.
OK, so the Bush Administration had our military attack Iraq contrary to the wishes of the United Nationsd and theEuropean Union. So what! The UN is dominated by third world countries, many of them Muslim countries, who have always hated America's power and who have spent 60 years condemning the State of Israel every time it hiccupped in response to Arab attacks and Palestinian provocations.
Apologizing to the Europeans was absurd! The EU is practically irrelevant with respect to world conflicts. True, the Europeans do possess some economic clout, but they are beset by divisive squabbles and, except for British and French nuclear arms, militarily weak. The British and French are frightened of a burgeoning volatile Islamic immigrant population and, together with other European nations, are loathe to take any domestic or foreighn policy actions that might anger local Muslims or the Islamic world.
The Muslim world is united in its utter hatred of Israel and Jews. Muslim clerics and religious school texts label Jews as pigs and apes. Any nation, like the U.S., that supports Israel is deemed an enemy waging war against Islam. Besides that, the true believers among Muslims hate all infidels, not just Jews, and they hate anything that smacks of Western culture. So what does Obama do? He bows to King Abdullah, the guardian of Islam's holiest shrines and the dictator of a country in which school children are taught to hate Christians and Jews.
Obama obviously ignores the fact that Islamists have been waging war against the West since well before the birth of Israel and long before either Bush ever took up residence in the White House. So, when Obama said that we are not at war with Islam, it is evident that he woke up in a different world from the rest of us. And when he reaches out to Muslims, they will just reach back to strangle us unless we drop our support of Israel, and unless we submit to the puritanical dictates of the Islamic faith.
While Obama's unwarranted apologies may have pleased his European audiences, they are an embarrassment to the United States which he may come to regret. And when he told the Turkish palirament that he wants a Palestinian state, he may have pleased some Muslims, but Israelis better beware! With Obama's inner circle of pro-Palestinian foreign policy advisers, Israel can take little comfort in the President's past declarations of support for the Jewish state.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
WHY BOTHER ?
When Obama announced that he was reaching out to the Muslim world, I predicted that he would move U.S. policy closer to the Palestinian side. Now it looks as if the Obama administration is getting ready to push for a Palestinian state by pressuring Israel into accepting the suicidal concessions demanded of it by the Palestinians with the support of the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.
Obama was caught on camera by journalists on Wednesday bowing in deference to Saudi King Abdullah as he greeted him at the G20 meeting in London. The President later expressed his support for the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan in his meeting Thursday with the Saudi monarch. That Saudi plan would almost certainly lead to the eventual destruction of the Jewish state.
Indications that the Obama administrateion will revise our Middle East policy away from one favoring Israel are that Obama's first phone call as President was to Palestinian Authority President Abbas and his first TV interview was on the Al-Arabiya network. And now Obama is bowing to and embracing King Abdullah and expressing his support for the Saudi "peace" plan.
I believe that Israel's new prim-minister, Bibi Netanyahu, and his administration will try to find a solution to the conflict with the Palestinians which will not compromise the Jewish state's long-term security. The Palestinians will not accept any peace proposal that will guarantee Israel's survival. Netanyahu will not accept any demands from the Obama administration, the U.N., the E.U. and Russia that are not in Israel's best interests. Thus the prospects for a two-state solution seem to be rather dim and no peace appears to be in sight.
A Norwegian poll revealed that the majority of Palestinians oppose a two-state solution and one-third of them want to see the Jewish state annihilated. If that's true, why even bother to seek a solution?
INDEPENDENT NORWEGIAN POLL: PALESTINIAN MAJORITY OPPOSES TWO STATES
DEBKAfile Special Report
April 3, 2009
Amid the ping-pong between Washington and Jerusalem over the validity of a Palestinian state established alongside Israel as the end-product of peace negotiations, the Norwegian Fafo institute which sponsored the 1993 Oslo Framework accords decided to find out how the Palestinians felt about this solution. Its main discovery was that a majority, 53 percent, of Palestinians (like Israelis), is against two states.
This figure breaks down into 33 percent, who opt for the annihilation of the state of Israel, whether by political means or force of arms - to be replaced by a single Islamic republic on all parts of the country; and 20 percent, which favors a united Israeli-Palestinian state, to be eventually engulfed by the latter population.
When Hamas members are polled separately, support for two states drops to 21 percent.
Publication of these findings by the Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies, which is supported by Norwegian foreign ministry and respected by European Middle East policy-makers, indicates that its researchers have given up on the Oslo Accords and the two-state goal pursued by Washington.
However, DEBKAfile's Washington sources expect extreme reluctance on the part of the Obama administration to abandon this goal because it is the only policy objective it has developed and is being used, furthermore, as a key to open the administration's diplomatic door to the Muslim world, especially in the Afghanistan-Pakistan arena (now lumped together as the "Afpak" front).
The US president's advisers are urging him to speed up Israel-Palestinian peacemaking for these ends - even if it means foisting the two-state objective on the Israelis. Proof that the Palestinians too will have to be whipped into line brings the venture close to a mission impossible.
Obama was caught on camera by journalists on Wednesday bowing in deference to Saudi King Abdullah as he greeted him at the G20 meeting in London. The President later expressed his support for the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan in his meeting Thursday with the Saudi monarch. That Saudi plan would almost certainly lead to the eventual destruction of the Jewish state.
Indications that the Obama administrateion will revise our Middle East policy away from one favoring Israel are that Obama's first phone call as President was to Palestinian Authority President Abbas and his first TV interview was on the Al-Arabiya network. And now Obama is bowing to and embracing King Abdullah and expressing his support for the Saudi "peace" plan.
I believe that Israel's new prim-minister, Bibi Netanyahu, and his administration will try to find a solution to the conflict with the Palestinians which will not compromise the Jewish state's long-term security. The Palestinians will not accept any peace proposal that will guarantee Israel's survival. Netanyahu will not accept any demands from the Obama administration, the U.N., the E.U. and Russia that are not in Israel's best interests. Thus the prospects for a two-state solution seem to be rather dim and no peace appears to be in sight.
A Norwegian poll revealed that the majority of Palestinians oppose a two-state solution and one-third of them want to see the Jewish state annihilated. If that's true, why even bother to seek a solution?
INDEPENDENT NORWEGIAN POLL: PALESTINIAN MAJORITY OPPOSES TWO STATES
DEBKAfile Special Report
April 3, 2009
Amid the ping-pong between Washington and Jerusalem over the validity of a Palestinian state established alongside Israel as the end-product of peace negotiations, the Norwegian Fafo institute which sponsored the 1993 Oslo Framework accords decided to find out how the Palestinians felt about this solution. Its main discovery was that a majority, 53 percent, of Palestinians (like Israelis), is against two states.
This figure breaks down into 33 percent, who opt for the annihilation of the state of Israel, whether by political means or force of arms - to be replaced by a single Islamic republic on all parts of the country; and 20 percent, which favors a united Israeli-Palestinian state, to be eventually engulfed by the latter population.
When Hamas members are polled separately, support for two states drops to 21 percent.
Publication of these findings by the Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies, which is supported by Norwegian foreign ministry and respected by European Middle East policy-makers, indicates that its researchers have given up on the Oslo Accords and the two-state goal pursued by Washington.
However, DEBKAfile's Washington sources expect extreme reluctance on the part of the Obama administration to abandon this goal because it is the only policy objective it has developed and is being used, furthermore, as a key to open the administration's diplomatic door to the Muslim world, especially in the Afghanistan-Pakistan arena (now lumped together as the "Afpak" front).
The US president's advisers are urging him to speed up Israel-Palestinian peacemaking for these ends - even if it means foisting the two-state objective on the Israelis. Proof that the Palestinians too will have to be whipped into line brings the venture close to a mission impossible.
LITTLE OLD MAN WITH A BELLY AND NO HAIR
Every morning when I wake up, the first thing I do is make sure I don't smell any fresh dirt. Then, when I go into the bathroom to shave and brush my teeth, I look in the mirror. What I see is a handsome guy. Damn good looking for someone in their eighties. But wait a minute. Is that what I really look like? I received a clue in 2005.
In 2005, when I was on the Libra Santos during one of several container ship cruises with that vessel, we stopped off in Itajai, Brazil where I spent some time with the lovely Thais. The next time the Libra Santos came to Houston after I left the ship, I got together with some of the crew members and asked them if they saw Thais when they were in Itajai again. They did and they said she asked about me. She wanted to know where was "that little old man with a belly and no hair?" Ouch!
But it gets much worse. In 2007, I addressed the annual conference of the Texas Narcotics Officers Association, an organization that I founded. Several weeks later, I received the TNOA quarterly journal with my picture gracing the entire back cover. Shit! I looked like a decrepit old fart. And then my damn (formerly dear) wife put the final nail in the coffin when she said that I looked exactly like the picuture.
Recently a good friend (???) send me a funny video clip of someone singing "I Just Don't Look Good Naked Anymore." The clip included some unflattering cartoons of old people and pictures in line with the lyrics. How depressing to us burn-outs and yet, so true. Here are the lyrics to the song:
I JUST DON'T LOOK GOOD NAKED ANYMORE
I stepped out of the shower
And got a good look at myself
Pot belly, bald head
Man, I thought it was somebody else
I caught my reflection in the mirror
On the back of the bathroom door
And I just don't look good naked anymore
So I'm going upstairs to turn the bathroom mirror to the wall
I hung it there when I was trim and tall
I'd stand there smile and strut and flex
Until my arms got sore
But I just don't look good naked anymore
Well, I use to go out with the girls
I loved them one and all
Now they don't get very close to me
They're afraid that I might fall
Well, I went to the doctors
For my annual medical exam
Stood there in the buff
Suddenly he said, "Man!"
I said, "What is it Doc? Some fatal disease?
I just gotta know the score
He said, "No, you just don't look good naked anymore."
Well, me and my wife had a dance routine
Everybody said it was unique
Now it's only when we're back to back
That we're dancing cheek to cheek
Well, I went to a nude beach for a little seaside fun
Stretched out in my birthday suit soaking up the sun
Somebody yelled, "Hey!
There's an old white whale washed up on the shore!"
I just don't look good naked anymore
Now my arches fell, my chest went to hell
And my butt's a'draggin' the floor
And I just don't look good naked anymore
Click on this link to view the video clip my friend sent me
http://www.landercasper.com/AnyMore/AnyMore.html
In 2005, when I was on the Libra Santos during one of several container ship cruises with that vessel, we stopped off in Itajai, Brazil where I spent some time with the lovely Thais. The next time the Libra Santos came to Houston after I left the ship, I got together with some of the crew members and asked them if they saw Thais when they were in Itajai again. They did and they said she asked about me. She wanted to know where was "that little old man with a belly and no hair?" Ouch!
But it gets much worse. In 2007, I addressed the annual conference of the Texas Narcotics Officers Association, an organization that I founded. Several weeks later, I received the TNOA quarterly journal with my picture gracing the entire back cover. Shit! I looked like a decrepit old fart. And then my damn (formerly dear) wife put the final nail in the coffin when she said that I looked exactly like the picuture.
Recently a good friend (???) send me a funny video clip of someone singing "I Just Don't Look Good Naked Anymore." The clip included some unflattering cartoons of old people and pictures in line with the lyrics. How depressing to us burn-outs and yet, so true. Here are the lyrics to the song:
I JUST DON'T LOOK GOOD NAKED ANYMORE
I stepped out of the shower
And got a good look at myself
Pot belly, bald head
Man, I thought it was somebody else
I caught my reflection in the mirror
On the back of the bathroom door
And I just don't look good naked anymore
So I'm going upstairs to turn the bathroom mirror to the wall
I hung it there when I was trim and tall
I'd stand there smile and strut and flex
Until my arms got sore
But I just don't look good naked anymore
Well, I use to go out with the girls
I loved them one and all
Now they don't get very close to me
They're afraid that I might fall
Well, I went to the doctors
For my annual medical exam
Stood there in the buff
Suddenly he said, "Man!"
I said, "What is it Doc? Some fatal disease?
I just gotta know the score
He said, "No, you just don't look good naked anymore."
Well, me and my wife had a dance routine
Everybody said it was unique
Now it's only when we're back to back
That we're dancing cheek to cheek
Well, I went to a nude beach for a little seaside fun
Stretched out in my birthday suit soaking up the sun
Somebody yelled, "Hey!
There's an old white whale washed up on the shore!"
I just don't look good naked anymore
Now my arches fell, my chest went to hell
And my butt's a'draggin' the floor
And I just don't look good naked anymore
Click on this link to view the video clip my friend sent me
http://www.landercasper.com/AnyMore/AnyMore.html
OLIPHANT JOINS ARAB CARTOONISTS
Having spent the first ten years of my life in Germany, three years under the rule of the Nazis, I remember the awful political cartoons deplicting Jews in the most grotesque manner, always with distorted hook-noses, unkempt beards, wearing skull caps and sinister-looking dark clothing. The caricatures would be accopanied by captions intended to convey the message that Jews were exploiting German gentiles, were behind the economic depression and many of Germany's other problems, or that the Zionists were bent on taking over the world.
The newspapers of the Arab world, which applauded Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jews, have used similar caricatures in their political cartoons ever since, and almost daily since the founding of the hated "Zionist entity" (Israel) in 1948. Now they have been joined by American political cartoonist Pat Oliphant.
In today's Townhall.com, Cliff May has a column which describes the impact of Oliphant's catoon which depicted Israel as a goose-stepping, headless, jack-booted creature. Since the cartoon was an attack on Israel's conduct of the war against Hamas, Mays also defended its military actions in Gaza. Here is May's Townhall.com column.
MIDDLE EAST CARICATURE
by Cliff May
Let's not call the political cartoonist Pat Oliphant an anti-Semite or even an Israel-basher. Let's just be clear about what he is doing: encouraging those whose intentions are genocidal.
Hamas unambiguously falls into that category. The Hamas Charter calls for Israel to be "obliterated." Hamas' founder, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, said Israel must "disappear from the map." Hamas spokesman and legislator Sheikh Ahmad Bahr has said that both Israel and America "will be annihilated," adding: "Kill them all, down to the very last one." Hamas-owned Al-Aqsa TV has promised: "We will wipe out the people of Zion, and will not leave a single one of them."
Oliphant is not just any opinion monger. He is the most widely syndicated political cartoonist in the world, winner of the Pulitzer Prize and other prestigious awards. The drawing he distributed in late March shows a headless (therefore inhuman) figure representing Israel. The creature wears jackboots and is goose-stepping (because Nazis wore jackboots and goose-stepped). It has a brawny, hairy arm wielding a sword (to suggest it is primitive and bellicose). It is pushing a Star of David (the symbol of both Israel and Judaism) that has a shark's face with an open mouth and long, sharp teeth (no explanation needed). It pursues its victim: a tiny, defenseless mother and child labeled "Gaza."
The symbolism here is unoriginal. Dehumanizing Jews in cartoons is a tradition that dates back at least to Germany in the 1930s and has been maintained in the Arab press ever since. Nor is it novel to equate 21st century Jews with their 20th century executioners. But until now, such images have rarely, if ever, been so legitimized in the mainstream media. A corner has been turned.
Oliphant may not be interested in the context for the conflict between Israel and Hamas, but others should be. There is, for example, the fact that Israel occupied Gaza as a consequence of the 1967 war waged against Israel by Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other Arab states. Prior to that, Gaza was an Egyptian territory. There also is the fact that in 2005 Israel ended its occupation of Gaza. This fact is pertinent too: Many Gazans have supported Hamas knowing full well that the organization's top priority is to wage jihad against Israel.
In recent years, that has meant raining missiles on Israelis, not least on Israeli mothers and children. A few months ago, Israel launched a three-week air and ground offensive in an effort to make Hamas stop.
It is not only Israel's supporters who blame Hamas for the death and destruction that resulted. "The one responsible," said Nimr Hammad, an advisor to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, is "Hamas, and not the Zionist entity, which in its own view reacted to the firing of Palestinian missiles."
Wars can never be garden parties but during the recent conflict, far from acting like a headless monster, the Israel Defense Force took extraordinary efforts to limit civilian casualties, including, for example, making phone calls to Palestinian civilians to urge them to leave areas that would be targeted.
By contrast, Hamas took steps to increase non-combatant deaths. For instance, an Israeli armored brigade commander told The New York Times that his troops encountered "a woman, about 60 years old, walking with a white flag and six to eight children behind her, and behind them was a Hamas fighter with his gun. "We did not shoot him," the commander said.
Israeli scholar and author Barry Rubin, in a trenchant analysis of Oliphant's drawing, does not charge the cartoonist with anti-Semitism or even hatred of Israelis. "What is involved here," he writes, "is a lack of understanding," but one that is "so enormous that it will incite hatred; cause violence and death; and block policies needed to help people-including Palestinians who are supposedly the object of [Oliphant's] sympathy but thus doomed to suffer under a repressive regime with a permanent war policy."
Rubin argues, too, that Oliphant's image "represents the mentality that will plague every Western and democratic state in the coming years. Imagine the exact same cartoon but with the Magen David replaced by the Stars and Stripes-the evil America attacking the Taliban or al-Qaida, or Iraq, or Muslims in general."
Which raises this question: Do Oliphant and others like him believe that no people under attack by militant Islamists have the right of self-defense? Or are only Israelis expected to accustom themselves to absorbing punishment indefinitely?
I'm not sure which answer would be the more disturbing.
The newspapers of the Arab world, which applauded Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jews, have used similar caricatures in their political cartoons ever since, and almost daily since the founding of the hated "Zionist entity" (Israel) in 1948. Now they have been joined by American political cartoonist Pat Oliphant.
In today's Townhall.com, Cliff May has a column which describes the impact of Oliphant's catoon which depicted Israel as a goose-stepping, headless, jack-booted creature. Since the cartoon was an attack on Israel's conduct of the war against Hamas, Mays also defended its military actions in Gaza. Here is May's Townhall.com column.
MIDDLE EAST CARICATURE
by Cliff May
Let's not call the political cartoonist Pat Oliphant an anti-Semite or even an Israel-basher. Let's just be clear about what he is doing: encouraging those whose intentions are genocidal.
Hamas unambiguously falls into that category. The Hamas Charter calls for Israel to be "obliterated." Hamas' founder, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, said Israel must "disappear from the map." Hamas spokesman and legislator Sheikh Ahmad Bahr has said that both Israel and America "will be annihilated," adding: "Kill them all, down to the very last one." Hamas-owned Al-Aqsa TV has promised: "We will wipe out the people of Zion, and will not leave a single one of them."
Oliphant is not just any opinion monger. He is the most widely syndicated political cartoonist in the world, winner of the Pulitzer Prize and other prestigious awards. The drawing he distributed in late March shows a headless (therefore inhuman) figure representing Israel. The creature wears jackboots and is goose-stepping (because Nazis wore jackboots and goose-stepped). It has a brawny, hairy arm wielding a sword (to suggest it is primitive and bellicose). It is pushing a Star of David (the symbol of both Israel and Judaism) that has a shark's face with an open mouth and long, sharp teeth (no explanation needed). It pursues its victim: a tiny, defenseless mother and child labeled "Gaza."
The symbolism here is unoriginal. Dehumanizing Jews in cartoons is a tradition that dates back at least to Germany in the 1930s and has been maintained in the Arab press ever since. Nor is it novel to equate 21st century Jews with their 20th century executioners. But until now, such images have rarely, if ever, been so legitimized in the mainstream media. A corner has been turned.
Oliphant may not be interested in the context for the conflict between Israel and Hamas, but others should be. There is, for example, the fact that Israel occupied Gaza as a consequence of the 1967 war waged against Israel by Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other Arab states. Prior to that, Gaza was an Egyptian territory. There also is the fact that in 2005 Israel ended its occupation of Gaza. This fact is pertinent too: Many Gazans have supported Hamas knowing full well that the organization's top priority is to wage jihad against Israel.
In recent years, that has meant raining missiles on Israelis, not least on Israeli mothers and children. A few months ago, Israel launched a three-week air and ground offensive in an effort to make Hamas stop.
It is not only Israel's supporters who blame Hamas for the death and destruction that resulted. "The one responsible," said Nimr Hammad, an advisor to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, is "Hamas, and not the Zionist entity, which in its own view reacted to the firing of Palestinian missiles."
Wars can never be garden parties but during the recent conflict, far from acting like a headless monster, the Israel Defense Force took extraordinary efforts to limit civilian casualties, including, for example, making phone calls to Palestinian civilians to urge them to leave areas that would be targeted.
By contrast, Hamas took steps to increase non-combatant deaths. For instance, an Israeli armored brigade commander told The New York Times that his troops encountered "a woman, about 60 years old, walking with a white flag and six to eight children behind her, and behind them was a Hamas fighter with his gun. "We did not shoot him," the commander said.
Israeli scholar and author Barry Rubin, in a trenchant analysis of Oliphant's drawing, does not charge the cartoonist with anti-Semitism or even hatred of Israelis. "What is involved here," he writes, "is a lack of understanding," but one that is "so enormous that it will incite hatred; cause violence and death; and block policies needed to help people-including Palestinians who are supposedly the object of [Oliphant's] sympathy but thus doomed to suffer under a repressive regime with a permanent war policy."
Rubin argues, too, that Oliphant's image "represents the mentality that will plague every Western and democratic state in the coming years. Imagine the exact same cartoon but with the Magen David replaced by the Stars and Stripes-the evil America attacking the Taliban or al-Qaida, or Iraq, or Muslims in general."
Which raises this question: Do Oliphant and others like him believe that no people under attack by militant Islamists have the right of self-defense? Or are only Israelis expected to accustom themselves to absorbing punishment indefinitely?
I'm not sure which answer would be the more disturbing.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
GOODBYE, GOOD RIDDANCE AND MAY THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE ASS ON THE WAY OUT
COP WHO STOPPED NFL PLAYER IN HOSPITAL LOT RESIGNS
by Jamie Stengle, Associated Press Writer
DALLAS (AP)—The police officer who pulled out his gun and threatened an NFL player with jail instead of allowing him inside a hospital where his mother-in-law was dying resigned Wednesday.
Officer Robert Powell had been placed on paid leave pending an investigation of the March 18 incident.
"I made this decision in the hope that my resignation will allow the Dallas Police Department, my fellow officers and the citizens of Dallas to better reflect on this experience, learn from the mistakes made, and move forward," Powell said in a statement issued through his attorneys.
He had stopped Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats’ SUV outside Baylor Regional Medical Center in suburban Plano after the vehicle rolled through a red light.
The officer pulled out his gun and threatened Moats with jail as the player and his family pleaded to be allowed to go inside the hospital. Powell continued writing Moats a ticket and lecturing him even after a fellow officer confirmed that Moats’ mother-in-law was dying.
Jonetta Collinsworth, 45, died of breast cancer before Powell allowed Moats to go inside the hospital.
Powell’s resignation was first reported by Dallas-Fort Worth television station KTVT. He later issued an apology, and Moats said he would accept it.
"I still hope to speak with the Moats family to personally express my deep regret, sympathy, and to apologize for my poor judgment and unprofessional conduct," he said in the Wednesday statement.
He also said he wanted to apologize to his fellow officers.
A call to Dallas police was not immediately returned Wednesday.
Dallas police Chief David Kunkle previously apologized to the family and said Powell acted inappropriately. He also lauded Moats’ restraint, noting that he did not try to seek special treatment by identifying himself as an NFL player.
Moats, 26, explained that he had waited until there was no traffic before continuing through the red light. When Powell asked for proof of insurance, Moats grew more agitated and told the officer to go find it.
According to video from a dashboard camera inside the officer’s vehicle, Moats’ wife, Tamishia Moats, and another woman disregarded Powell’s order to get back inside their vehicle, and they rushed into the hospital. After Powell yelled at Tamishia Moats to stay in the SUV, she said, "Excuse me, my mom is dying—do you understand?"
by Jamie Stengle, Associated Press Writer
DALLAS (AP)—The police officer who pulled out his gun and threatened an NFL player with jail instead of allowing him inside a hospital where his mother-in-law was dying resigned Wednesday.
Officer Robert Powell had been placed on paid leave pending an investigation of the March 18 incident.
"I made this decision in the hope that my resignation will allow the Dallas Police Department, my fellow officers and the citizens of Dallas to better reflect on this experience, learn from the mistakes made, and move forward," Powell said in a statement issued through his attorneys.
He had stopped Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats’ SUV outside Baylor Regional Medical Center in suburban Plano after the vehicle rolled through a red light.
The officer pulled out his gun and threatened Moats with jail as the player and his family pleaded to be allowed to go inside the hospital. Powell continued writing Moats a ticket and lecturing him even after a fellow officer confirmed that Moats’ mother-in-law was dying.
Jonetta Collinsworth, 45, died of breast cancer before Powell allowed Moats to go inside the hospital.
Powell’s resignation was first reported by Dallas-Fort Worth television station KTVT. He later issued an apology, and Moats said he would accept it.
"I still hope to speak with the Moats family to personally express my deep regret, sympathy, and to apologize for my poor judgment and unprofessional conduct," he said in the Wednesday statement.
He also said he wanted to apologize to his fellow officers.
A call to Dallas police was not immediately returned Wednesday.
Dallas police Chief David Kunkle previously apologized to the family and said Powell acted inappropriately. He also lauded Moats’ restraint, noting that he did not try to seek special treatment by identifying himself as an NFL player.
Moats, 26, explained that he had waited until there was no traffic before continuing through the red light. When Powell asked for proof of insurance, Moats grew more agitated and told the officer to go find it.
According to video from a dashboard camera inside the officer’s vehicle, Moats’ wife, Tamishia Moats, and another woman disregarded Powell’s order to get back inside their vehicle, and they rushed into the hospital. After Powell yelled at Tamishia Moats to stay in the SUV, she said, "Excuse me, my mom is dying—do you understand?"
NEW PATH IN THE PEACE PROCESS
ISRAEL'S NEW FOREIGN MINISTER DISMISSES ANNAPOLIS
By Jeffrey Heller and Adam Entous
JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israel's new foreign minister angered Palestinians and raised the prospect of tension with Washington by saying Wednesday that Israel was not bound by a deal to start negotiations on establishing a Palestinian state.
On his first day at the Foreign Ministry, right-winger Avigdor Lieberman said the U.S.-sponsored Annapolis declaration of 2007 "has no validity," confirming a shift in stance toward the Palestinians under new Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Lieberman, a Soviet immigrant denounced as a racist by many Arabs, did stress however that Israel was obliged to follow the course charted by a U.S.-backed peace "road map" of 2003. That obliges Palestinian leaders to curb attacks on Israel before any negotiations on the final shape of a statehood deal take place.
Lieberman was effectively confirming that Netanyahu's new administration has withdrawn from its predecessors' commitment to negotiate on borders and issues like the status of Jerusalem before the two sides are satisfied road map pledges are met.
That could push negotiations on statehood deep into the future. With Gaza in the hands of Hamas Islamists, many doubt Western-backed Palestinian leaders in the West Bank can meet Israeli security conditions for such talks any time soon.
A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Lieberman's comments threatened regional stability and urged the United States to come out and make its opposition clear.
U.S. President Barack Obama reaffirmed only last week his commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
A spokesman with Obama in London said: "We are committed to working vigorously for this two-state solution."
He added: "We look forward to working with the new Israeli government and understand that we will have frank discussions."
ANNAPOLIS
At a conference in November 2007 hosted at Annapolis in the U.S. state of Maryland by Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to further "the goal of two states" in immediate negotiations with the Palestinians.
But Lieberman said only Bush's earlier road map, produced in 2003, was binding on Israel -- a distinction in accord with Netanyahu's expected emphasis on curbing violence before embarking on negotiations on statehood. In the talks begun at Annapolis, Olmert was effectively seeking to do both at once.
"There is only one document that binds us and that is not Annapolis, it has no validity," Lieberman said in a brief speech as he took over the ministry from the centrist Tzipi Livni.
Noting that parties in the coalition undertook to honor all foreign commitments, he added: "I voted against the road map ... but it is the only document approved by the government and ... ratified by the (U.N.) Security Council as a binding document."
An Israeli official said: "He doesn't want to jump to final status negotiations as was laid out in Annapolis."
The centrist Olmert, who resigned last year over corruption allegations, finally stepped down Tuesday as Netanyahu was sworn in following an election on February 10 that produced a right-wing majority in parliament. Lieberman's ultranationalist party is the biggest ally of Netanyahu's Likud in the cabinet.
A political source close to Netanyahu said his remarks reflected the position of the new leader. He has not endorsed statehood for the Palestinians, in so many words. He has said instead he thinks they should govern themselves but have limited powers of authority that would not endanger Israeli security.
Netanyahu also defends expanding existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank, despite Palestinian -- and U.S. -- complaints that the road map obliges Israel to halt settlement activity.
SIGNAL
Eytan Gilboa of Israel's Bar-Ilan University said of Lieberman: "His purpose was simply to send a message that this is a new government and the policy of this government is going to be different ... It's a signal, a message. But the real meaning of it will have to be explored in subsequent months."
Abbas aide Nabil Abu Rdainah said Washington "should take a clear position against this policy before things get worse."
Lieberman surprised some Foreign Ministry officials: "He said Annapolis goes down the drain and we're only committed to the road map. So I guess that's the new path," one said.
Officials said Israeli embassies were immediately sent a cable setting out the key quotes from Lieberman's statement. A senior Israeli diplomat said this amounted to a directive saying "Israel is not committed to the Annapolis process."
By Jeffrey Heller and Adam Entous
JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israel's new foreign minister angered Palestinians and raised the prospect of tension with Washington by saying Wednesday that Israel was not bound by a deal to start negotiations on establishing a Palestinian state.
On his first day at the Foreign Ministry, right-winger Avigdor Lieberman said the U.S.-sponsored Annapolis declaration of 2007 "has no validity," confirming a shift in stance toward the Palestinians under new Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Lieberman, a Soviet immigrant denounced as a racist by many Arabs, did stress however that Israel was obliged to follow the course charted by a U.S.-backed peace "road map" of 2003. That obliges Palestinian leaders to curb attacks on Israel before any negotiations on the final shape of a statehood deal take place.
Lieberman was effectively confirming that Netanyahu's new administration has withdrawn from its predecessors' commitment to negotiate on borders and issues like the status of Jerusalem before the two sides are satisfied road map pledges are met.
That could push negotiations on statehood deep into the future. With Gaza in the hands of Hamas Islamists, many doubt Western-backed Palestinian leaders in the West Bank can meet Israeli security conditions for such talks any time soon.
A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Lieberman's comments threatened regional stability and urged the United States to come out and make its opposition clear.
U.S. President Barack Obama reaffirmed only last week his commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
A spokesman with Obama in London said: "We are committed to working vigorously for this two-state solution."
He added: "We look forward to working with the new Israeli government and understand that we will have frank discussions."
ANNAPOLIS
At a conference in November 2007 hosted at Annapolis in the U.S. state of Maryland by Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to further "the goal of two states" in immediate negotiations with the Palestinians.
But Lieberman said only Bush's earlier road map, produced in 2003, was binding on Israel -- a distinction in accord with Netanyahu's expected emphasis on curbing violence before embarking on negotiations on statehood. In the talks begun at Annapolis, Olmert was effectively seeking to do both at once.
"There is only one document that binds us and that is not Annapolis, it has no validity," Lieberman said in a brief speech as he took over the ministry from the centrist Tzipi Livni.
Noting that parties in the coalition undertook to honor all foreign commitments, he added: "I voted against the road map ... but it is the only document approved by the government and ... ratified by the (U.N.) Security Council as a binding document."
An Israeli official said: "He doesn't want to jump to final status negotiations as was laid out in Annapolis."
The centrist Olmert, who resigned last year over corruption allegations, finally stepped down Tuesday as Netanyahu was sworn in following an election on February 10 that produced a right-wing majority in parliament. Lieberman's ultranationalist party is the biggest ally of Netanyahu's Likud in the cabinet.
A political source close to Netanyahu said his remarks reflected the position of the new leader. He has not endorsed statehood for the Palestinians, in so many words. He has said instead he thinks they should govern themselves but have limited powers of authority that would not endanger Israeli security.
Netanyahu also defends expanding existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank, despite Palestinian -- and U.S. -- complaints that the road map obliges Israel to halt settlement activity.
SIGNAL
Eytan Gilboa of Israel's Bar-Ilan University said of Lieberman: "His purpose was simply to send a message that this is a new government and the policy of this government is going to be different ... It's a signal, a message. But the real meaning of it will have to be explored in subsequent months."
Abbas aide Nabil Abu Rdainah said Washington "should take a clear position against this policy before things get worse."
Lieberman surprised some Foreign Ministry officials: "He said Annapolis goes down the drain and we're only committed to the road map. So I guess that's the new path," one said.
Officials said Israeli embassies were immediately sent a cable setting out the key quotes from Lieberman's statement. A senior Israeli diplomat said this amounted to a directive saying "Israel is not committed to the Annapolis process."
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
DARK DAYS MAY BE AHEAD FOR GUN OWNERS
Recently, I blogged "Should Gun Owners Be Worried?" (3-23-09). I concluded that they should be. In today's Townhall.com, Janet LaRue describes how Barack Obama has consistently waffled on the gun control issue starting with his campaign for the U.S. Senate. While her well-researched article provides compelling evidence that the Founding Fathers strongly favored individual gun ownership, LaRue predicts that, with Obama at the helm, dark days may be ahead for America's gun owners.
Here is LaRue's Townhall.com column:
OBAMA'S SIGHTS ON SECOND AMENDMENT
by Janet M. LaRue
While campaigning for the U.S. Senate and then the presidency, Barack Obama said he believed in the individual right to bear arms.
Those aware of his record and rhetoric thought he might have been referring to his wife’s penchant for sleeveless attire, not the Second Amendment.
During his 2004 run for the Senate, Obama said "I think that the Second Amendment means something. I think that if the government were to confiscate everybody’s guns unilaterally that I think that would be subject to constitutional challenge." No kidding.
He didn’t say it would be unconstitutional, just "subject to constitutional challenge." Nor did he express any opposition.
During the presidential campaign, a case challenging Washington D.C.’s draconian gun laws was pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. The laws banned all handgun registrations, prohibited handguns already registered from being carried from room to room in the home without a license, and required all firearms in the home, including rifles and shotguns, to be unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.
In June, the Court released its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the laws violate the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to service in a militia as secured by the Fourth Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, emphasized that the individual right to bear arms pre-exists, and is independent of, the Constitution:
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . ."
Obama admitted in a Feb. 11, 2008, interview that he supported the handgun ban, and that it was "constitutional." On June 26, he said he agreed with the Court’s decision, but added that the right to bear arms is subject to "reasonable regulations." He never "explained" how an absolute ban on handguns is "reasonable," or how he can agree with the ruling, which said it was unreasonable. Obama’s inconsistencies are numerous, as John R. Lott Jr has noted.
Obama continued to duck and cover by talking about getting illegal guns off the streets, background checks for children and the mentally ill, and attacking the NRA.
Since his election, finding mention of the Second Amendment on the White House Web site takes about as long as getting to the front of the line at a gun store. What is on the site could be engraved on a .22 shell casing.
WH: The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. [Emphasis added.]
It’s far from the high caliber opinion of the Court or those of the Founders who fought for and secured the right:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist 46
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry
"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent "the people" of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams
"A free people ought ... to be armed." George Washington
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 28
Despite the Heller ruling and his professed regard for the Amendment, Obama will push legislation to make possession and purchase of guns and ammunition as burdensome as the constitutionally comatose congressional majority will enact.
We should heed the warning of James Madison, "Father of the Constitution":
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
Here is LaRue's Townhall.com column:
OBAMA'S SIGHTS ON SECOND AMENDMENT
by Janet M. LaRue
While campaigning for the U.S. Senate and then the presidency, Barack Obama said he believed in the individual right to bear arms.
Those aware of his record and rhetoric thought he might have been referring to his wife’s penchant for sleeveless attire, not the Second Amendment.
During his 2004 run for the Senate, Obama said "I think that the Second Amendment means something. I think that if the government were to confiscate everybody’s guns unilaterally that I think that would be subject to constitutional challenge." No kidding.
He didn’t say it would be unconstitutional, just "subject to constitutional challenge." Nor did he express any opposition.
During the presidential campaign, a case challenging Washington D.C.’s draconian gun laws was pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. The laws banned all handgun registrations, prohibited handguns already registered from being carried from room to room in the home without a license, and required all firearms in the home, including rifles and shotguns, to be unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.
In June, the Court released its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the laws violate the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to service in a militia as secured by the Fourth Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, emphasized that the individual right to bear arms pre-exists, and is independent of, the Constitution:
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . ."
Obama admitted in a Feb. 11, 2008, interview that he supported the handgun ban, and that it was "constitutional." On June 26, he said he agreed with the Court’s decision, but added that the right to bear arms is subject to "reasonable regulations." He never "explained" how an absolute ban on handguns is "reasonable," or how he can agree with the ruling, which said it was unreasonable. Obama’s inconsistencies are numerous, as John R. Lott Jr has noted.
Obama continued to duck and cover by talking about getting illegal guns off the streets, background checks for children and the mentally ill, and attacking the NRA.
Since his election, finding mention of the Second Amendment on the White House Web site takes about as long as getting to the front of the line at a gun store. What is on the site could be engraved on a .22 shell casing.
WH: The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. [Emphasis added.]
It’s far from the high caliber opinion of the Court or those of the Founders who fought for and secured the right:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist 46
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry
"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent "the people" of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams
"A free people ought ... to be armed." George Washington
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 28
Despite the Heller ruling and his professed regard for the Amendment, Obama will push legislation to make possession and purchase of guns and ammunition as burdensome as the constitutionally comatose congressional majority will enact.
We should heed the warning of James Madison, "Father of the Constitution":
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
Monday, March 30, 2009
COP KILLER LABELED URBAN TERRORIST
A judge in Philadelphia definitely got it right when he labeled cop killer Rasheed Scrugs "a domestic urban terrorist." It may not be politically correct, but it is high time that thugs from the ghetto are recognized for what they are - terrorists. Forget all that horseshit about socio-economically deprived victims of racism, absent of their fathers, and abused in early childhood. I am sure the jurors will be subjected to that phony shit when Scrugs is tried for a cold blooded cop killing.
Scrugs is the perfect candidate for a death sentence. But it's too bad that officers at the scene were not accurate enough with their return gunfire to kill that piece of shit.
From the Philadelphia Inquirer, here are the facts in the killing of a brave poliec officer:
PA. JUDGE CALLS OFFICER'S KILLER A "TERRORIST"
By Vernon Clark
Philadelphia Inquirer
March 28, 2009
PHILADELPHIA — A municipal court judge yesterday branded the accused killer of Officer John Pawlowski as "a domestic urban terrorist" who "ambushed" police officers responding to a call.
In a courtroom nearly filled with police officers and friends and relatives of Pawlowski, who was slain Feb. 13, Judge Patrick Dugan then ordered Rasheed Scrugs held for trial, which he scheduled for April 16.
Scrugs, 33, is charged with murder, attempted murder, robbery and related charges in connection with the death of Pawlowski, 25, who was shot when he intervened in an attempted robbery.
For the first time, officers on the scene gave a detailed account of the deadly confrontation, with one saying he fired at least 10 shots toward Scrugs.
Pawlowski's widow, Kim, who is pregnant, sat in the front row of the courtroom with relatives and wept throughout the hearing. Several ranking police officials were present, and uniformed police officers lined both sides of a long hallway leading to the courtroom.
Four witnesses, including Pawlowski's partner, Officer Mark Klein, identified Scrugs as the gunman as they testified about the shooting at Broad Street and Olney Avenue.
Klein said that he and Pawlowski were responding to a report of a man with a knife when they arrived at the scene and saw hack taxi driver Emmanuel Ceser, who identified Scrugs as the man who had been harassing him and trying to take his money.
"I noticed the defendant walking backwards with his eyes on me and John," Klein testified. "John said, 'I want to see your hands.' "
Klein said that Scrugs then fired out a handgun from his right jacket pocket and that Pawlowski "was standing and then basically collapsed."
Klein testified that he started dragging Pawlowski toward their patrol car and that Scrugs then began firing at Officer Stephen Mancuso, who arrived as backup, "and that's when he came around and fired at me."
"I basically fired until the defendant dropped," Klein said, adding that he fired about 10 shots.
Assistant District Attorney Edward McCann said Pawlowski was felled by three gunshots, one to the right chest, a graze wound to the right arm and one shot to the back.
Mancuso testified that as he drove to the scene, he saw Pawlowski and Klein facing Scrugs.
"I looked and saw a male standing there. John and Mark were walking toward the male and I saw a muzzle flash. . . . I saw John kind of tense up and fall to the ground."
Mancuso said that he fired three shots at Scrugs and that he saw "muzzle flashes" coming from Scrugs.
He said he then saw Scrugs fall to the ground on the Broad Street median.
Through much of the 90-minute hearing, Scrugs sat with his elbows on the defense table, his hands folded in front of his face. Scrugs, who was wounded in the shootout, used a walker to enter the court from a holding area.
During a break in the testimony, Scrugs fell to the floor in the doorway of a holding area as he was being led from the courtroom. He accused court officers of pushing him down.
In his testimony, Ceser, the taxi driver, said that Scrugs had slammed him against a newsstand, grabbed at a chest-level pocket on Ceser's jacket where he kept his money and asked, "How much did you make today?"
Ceser said he walked across Broad Street and called police.
He said Scrugs confronted him again. "He told me if I called the cops, he would shoot me and the cops."
Outside the courthouse, Lee Mandell, Scrugs' court-appointed defense attorney, said he offered to waive the preliminary hearing to spare Pawlowski's family from hearing the testimony.
McCann, the assistant district attorney, said he wanted to hold the hearing so that any testimony given would be part of the court record if something were to happen to witnesses.
Scrugs is the perfect candidate for a death sentence. But it's too bad that officers at the scene were not accurate enough with their return gunfire to kill that piece of shit.
From the Philadelphia Inquirer, here are the facts in the killing of a brave poliec officer:
PA. JUDGE CALLS OFFICER'S KILLER A "TERRORIST"
By Vernon Clark
Philadelphia Inquirer
March 28, 2009
PHILADELPHIA — A municipal court judge yesterday branded the accused killer of Officer John Pawlowski as "a domestic urban terrorist" who "ambushed" police officers responding to a call.
In a courtroom nearly filled with police officers and friends and relatives of Pawlowski, who was slain Feb. 13, Judge Patrick Dugan then ordered Rasheed Scrugs held for trial, which he scheduled for April 16.
Scrugs, 33, is charged with murder, attempted murder, robbery and related charges in connection with the death of Pawlowski, 25, who was shot when he intervened in an attempted robbery.
For the first time, officers on the scene gave a detailed account of the deadly confrontation, with one saying he fired at least 10 shots toward Scrugs.
Pawlowski's widow, Kim, who is pregnant, sat in the front row of the courtroom with relatives and wept throughout the hearing. Several ranking police officials were present, and uniformed police officers lined both sides of a long hallway leading to the courtroom.
Four witnesses, including Pawlowski's partner, Officer Mark Klein, identified Scrugs as the gunman as they testified about the shooting at Broad Street and Olney Avenue.
Klein said that he and Pawlowski were responding to a report of a man with a knife when they arrived at the scene and saw hack taxi driver Emmanuel Ceser, who identified Scrugs as the man who had been harassing him and trying to take his money.
"I noticed the defendant walking backwards with his eyes on me and John," Klein testified. "John said, 'I want to see your hands.' "
Klein said that Scrugs then fired out a handgun from his right jacket pocket and that Pawlowski "was standing and then basically collapsed."
Klein testified that he started dragging Pawlowski toward their patrol car and that Scrugs then began firing at Officer Stephen Mancuso, who arrived as backup, "and that's when he came around and fired at me."
"I basically fired until the defendant dropped," Klein said, adding that he fired about 10 shots.
Assistant District Attorney Edward McCann said Pawlowski was felled by three gunshots, one to the right chest, a graze wound to the right arm and one shot to the back.
Mancuso testified that as he drove to the scene, he saw Pawlowski and Klein facing Scrugs.
"I looked and saw a male standing there. John and Mark were walking toward the male and I saw a muzzle flash. . . . I saw John kind of tense up and fall to the ground."
Mancuso said that he fired three shots at Scrugs and that he saw "muzzle flashes" coming from Scrugs.
He said he then saw Scrugs fall to the ground on the Broad Street median.
Through much of the 90-minute hearing, Scrugs sat with his elbows on the defense table, his hands folded in front of his face. Scrugs, who was wounded in the shootout, used a walker to enter the court from a holding area.
During a break in the testimony, Scrugs fell to the floor in the doorway of a holding area as he was being led from the courtroom. He accused court officers of pushing him down.
In his testimony, Ceser, the taxi driver, said that Scrugs had slammed him against a newsstand, grabbed at a chest-level pocket on Ceser's jacket where he kept his money and asked, "How much did you make today?"
Ceser said he walked across Broad Street and called police.
He said Scrugs confronted him again. "He told me if I called the cops, he would shoot me and the cops."
Outside the courthouse, Lee Mandell, Scrugs' court-appointed defense attorney, said he offered to waive the preliminary hearing to spare Pawlowski's family from hearing the testimony.
McCann, the assistant district attorney, said he wanted to hold the hearing so that any testimony given would be part of the court record if something were to happen to witnesses.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITIES RESPOND TO A PEACE GESTURE BY THEIR OWN
I have written several blogs on the Palestinian's hatred of Jews and their repeated vows to destroy the State of Israel. Recently, as a peace gesture, a 13-member string orchestra made up of Palestinian youngsters, ages 12 to 17, from the Jenin refugee camp went to Israel for a performance before some 30 Holocaust surviviors.
So, how did the "moderate" Palestinian authorities respond when they heard about this act of kindness? They disbanded the orchestra, boarded up the place where the young musicians were taught, and banned the groups's Israeli-Arab conductor from the Jenin camp. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
Does the international community really expect the Israelis to make suicidal concessions to a bunch of "moderate" hate mongerers who get all exercised each and every time there is any mention or recognition of the Holocaust? How can Israel be expected to trust the very people who are bent on its destruction?
Here is a report on how Palestinian authorities responded to their own youngsters' peace gesture:
PALESTINIAN YOUTH ORCHESTRA DISBANDED OVER CONCERT FOR HOLOCAUST SURVIORS
By The Associated Press
Palestinian authorities disbanded a youth orchestra from a West Bank refugee camp after it played for a group of Holocaust survivors in Israel, a local official said on Sunday.
Adnan Hindi of the Jenin camp called the Holocaust a political issue and accused conductor Wafa Younis of unknowingly dragging the children into a political dispute.
He added that Younis has been barred from the camp and the apartment where she taught the 13-member Strings of Freedom orchestra has been boarded up.
"She exploited the children," said Hindi, the head of the camp's popular committee, which takes on municipal duties. "She will be forbidden from doing any activities.... We have to protect our children and our community."
The move highlights the sensitivity of many Palestinians over acknowledging Jewish suffering, fearing it would weaken their own historical grievances against Israel.
So, how did the "moderate" Palestinian authorities respond when they heard about this act of kindness? They disbanded the orchestra, boarded up the place where the young musicians were taught, and banned the groups's Israeli-Arab conductor from the Jenin camp. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
Does the international community really expect the Israelis to make suicidal concessions to a bunch of "moderate" hate mongerers who get all exercised each and every time there is any mention or recognition of the Holocaust? How can Israel be expected to trust the very people who are bent on its destruction?
Here is a report on how Palestinian authorities responded to their own youngsters' peace gesture:
PALESTINIAN YOUTH ORCHESTRA DISBANDED OVER CONCERT FOR HOLOCAUST SURVIORS
By The Associated Press
Palestinian authorities disbanded a youth orchestra from a West Bank refugee camp after it played for a group of Holocaust survivors in Israel, a local official said on Sunday.
Adnan Hindi of the Jenin camp called the Holocaust a political issue and accused conductor Wafa Younis of unknowingly dragging the children into a political dispute.
He added that Younis has been barred from the camp and the apartment where she taught the 13-member Strings of Freedom orchestra has been boarded up.
"She exploited the children," said Hindi, the head of the camp's popular committee, which takes on municipal duties. "She will be forbidden from doing any activities.... We have to protect our children and our community."
The move highlights the sensitivity of many Palestinians over acknowledging Jewish suffering, fearing it would weaken their own historical grievances against Israel.
ATROCITIES
In every war, atrocities have been committed by each side. There are the government approved mass atrocities committed by the Nazi Wehrmacht and the Imperial Japanese army. Many insist that the WWII pulverization of German cities by Allied airforces and the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the U.S. airforce were atrocities. Then there are the isolated atrocities committed by individual soldiers or by a small group of soldiers.
American soldiers have committed their share of atrocities. During WWII, there were occasions when our soldiers deliberately shot down surrendering German soldiers. During the Korean War, American troops massacred dozens of civilians at No Gun Ri. During the Viet Nam War, there was the Mi Lai Massacre. In Iraq, some of our soldiers deliberately killed innocent civilians. Wars are brutal. American soldiers, like those of any other country, will on occasion respond to the killing of their comrades by taking their revenge out on innocent civilians.
Recently the media has been reporting on alleged Israeli atrocities committed against Gaza civilians as decried by Hamas and by UN officials. Then a group of Israeli soldiers went to Haaretz, a daily Israeli left-wing newspaper, charging that the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) had deliberately committed numerous atrocities against Gaza civilians. The media pounced on that and the Palestinians and UN officials reacted with the "we told you so" bit.
Ethan Bronner, a New York Times reporter based in Jerusalem, wrote several articles depicting alleged Israeli atrocities as described to him by Hamas sources. Yesterday, he finally got around to reporting the Israeli side of the controversy. The IDF claims that its own investigation revealed that most of the soldiers who went to Haaretz were spreading "an urban legend" because they repeated what they heard some other soldiers say and did not personally witness the atrocities they described.
Who are you going to believe? That really depends on who you want to believe. Here is Bronner's report on the IDF investigation:
ISRAEL DISPUTES ABUSE OF CIVILIANS DURING GAZA WAR
Israel is pushing back against accusations of civilian abuse in its Gaza war, saying that the overwhelming majority of its soldiers acted honorably and that the account of a killing of a woman and her two children appears to be an urban myth spread by troops who did not witness it.
By Ethan Bronner
The New York Times
March 28, 2009
JERUSALEM — Israel is pushing back against accusations of civilian abuse in its Gaza war, saying that the overwhelming majority of its soldiers acted honorably and that the account of a killing of a woman and her two children appears to be an urban myth spread by troops who did not witness it.
Officers are stepping forward offering numerous accounts of having held their fire out of concern for civilians, helping Palestinians in need and punishing improper soldier behavior.
"I'm not saying that nothing bad happened," said Bentzi Gruber, a colonel in the reserves and deputy commander of the armored division. "But the proportion and effort and directions we gave to our soldiers were entirely in the opposite direction."
The accusations caused a furor because they came on top of others that the civilian death toll was high and that soldiers took an unusually aggressive approach in Gaza.
The accounts that have received the most attention came from a taped conversation of Gaza veterans at a pre-military course where soldiers told of a sniper killing a woman and her two children walking in a no-go zone and another of an elderly woman shot dead for approaching a commandeered house.
The army's advocate general has opened an investigation and has not issued a report. But officers familiar with the investigation said that those who spoke of the killing of the mother and children did not witness it and that it almost certainly did not occur. Warning shots were fired near the family but not at them, the officers said, and rumor spread of an improper shooting.
The second killing also may not have occurred, they said, although a similar event was recounted by Col. Herzl Halévy in January in Yediot Aharonot newspaper.
"We saw a woman coming toward us," he said then. "We shouted at her. We warned her a number of times not to get closer. We made hand motions. She did not stop. We shot her. When we examined her body, we did not find a bomb belt."
Israeli commanders defend such actions because they say they confronted armed women in Gaza and Hamas gunmen dressed as women and in other guises, such as doctors.
"We had a woman run at us with a grenade in one hand and the Quran in the other," Brig. Gen. Eli Shermeister, head of the military's education corps, said.
Col. Roi Elkabets, commander of an armored brigade told of occasions where fire was held. His troops saw "a woman, about 60 years old, walking with a white flag and six to eight children behind her and behind them was a Hamas fighter with his gun. We did not shoot him."
Almost everything about the Gaza operation has caused controversy: how many Palestinians were killed and what percentage were civilians whether the use of enormous military force was a legitimate response to years of Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.
The military issued its first official casualty count Thursday, saying 1,166 people were killed, of them 295 noncombatants, 709 that it called Hamas terror operatives and 162 men whose affiliations remained unidentified.
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza says the number of dead is 1,417, of whom 926 were civilians and 236 combatants. It did not characterize the status of the others.
The Gaza operation was launched in response to rocket fire into Israel by Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups. Thirteen Israelis died during the operation, including three civilians.
Material from The Seattle Times archive is included in this report.
American soldiers have committed their share of atrocities. During WWII, there were occasions when our soldiers deliberately shot down surrendering German soldiers. During the Korean War, American troops massacred dozens of civilians at No Gun Ri. During the Viet Nam War, there was the Mi Lai Massacre. In Iraq, some of our soldiers deliberately killed innocent civilians. Wars are brutal. American soldiers, like those of any other country, will on occasion respond to the killing of their comrades by taking their revenge out on innocent civilians.
Recently the media has been reporting on alleged Israeli atrocities committed against Gaza civilians as decried by Hamas and by UN officials. Then a group of Israeli soldiers went to Haaretz, a daily Israeli left-wing newspaper, charging that the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) had deliberately committed numerous atrocities against Gaza civilians. The media pounced on that and the Palestinians and UN officials reacted with the "we told you so" bit.
Ethan Bronner, a New York Times reporter based in Jerusalem, wrote several articles depicting alleged Israeli atrocities as described to him by Hamas sources. Yesterday, he finally got around to reporting the Israeli side of the controversy. The IDF claims that its own investigation revealed that most of the soldiers who went to Haaretz were spreading "an urban legend" because they repeated what they heard some other soldiers say and did not personally witness the atrocities they described.
Who are you going to believe? That really depends on who you want to believe. Here is Bronner's report on the IDF investigation:
ISRAEL DISPUTES ABUSE OF CIVILIANS DURING GAZA WAR
Israel is pushing back against accusations of civilian abuse in its Gaza war, saying that the overwhelming majority of its soldiers acted honorably and that the account of a killing of a woman and her two children appears to be an urban myth spread by troops who did not witness it.
By Ethan Bronner
The New York Times
March 28, 2009
JERUSALEM — Israel is pushing back against accusations of civilian abuse in its Gaza war, saying that the overwhelming majority of its soldiers acted honorably and that the account of a killing of a woman and her two children appears to be an urban myth spread by troops who did not witness it.
Officers are stepping forward offering numerous accounts of having held their fire out of concern for civilians, helping Palestinians in need and punishing improper soldier behavior.
"I'm not saying that nothing bad happened," said Bentzi Gruber, a colonel in the reserves and deputy commander of the armored division. "But the proportion and effort and directions we gave to our soldiers were entirely in the opposite direction."
The accusations caused a furor because they came on top of others that the civilian death toll was high and that soldiers took an unusually aggressive approach in Gaza.
The accounts that have received the most attention came from a taped conversation of Gaza veterans at a pre-military course where soldiers told of a sniper killing a woman and her two children walking in a no-go zone and another of an elderly woman shot dead for approaching a commandeered house.
The army's advocate general has opened an investigation and has not issued a report. But officers familiar with the investigation said that those who spoke of the killing of the mother and children did not witness it and that it almost certainly did not occur. Warning shots were fired near the family but not at them, the officers said, and rumor spread of an improper shooting.
The second killing also may not have occurred, they said, although a similar event was recounted by Col. Herzl Halévy in January in Yediot Aharonot newspaper.
"We saw a woman coming toward us," he said then. "We shouted at her. We warned her a number of times not to get closer. We made hand motions. She did not stop. We shot her. When we examined her body, we did not find a bomb belt."
Israeli commanders defend such actions because they say they confronted armed women in Gaza and Hamas gunmen dressed as women and in other guises, such as doctors.
"We had a woman run at us with a grenade in one hand and the Quran in the other," Brig. Gen. Eli Shermeister, head of the military's education corps, said.
Col. Roi Elkabets, commander of an armored brigade told of occasions where fire was held. His troops saw "a woman, about 60 years old, walking with a white flag and six to eight children behind her and behind them was a Hamas fighter with his gun. We did not shoot him."
Almost everything about the Gaza operation has caused controversy: how many Palestinians were killed and what percentage were civilians whether the use of enormous military force was a legitimate response to years of Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.
The military issued its first official casualty count Thursday, saying 1,166 people were killed, of them 295 noncombatants, 709 that it called Hamas terror operatives and 162 men whose affiliations remained unidentified.
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza says the number of dead is 1,417, of whom 926 were civilians and 236 combatants. It did not characterize the status of the others.
The Gaza operation was launched in response to rocket fire into Israel by Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups. Thirteen Israelis died during the operation, including three civilians.
Material from The Seattle Times archive is included in this report.
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATION: THE POLITICALLY CORRECT EUPHEMISM FOR THE WAR ON TERROR
Townhall.com
March 29, 2009
THE AFPAKI ATTACK: WILL POLITICAL CORRECTNESS CASTRATE IT BEFORE IT BEGINS?
by Doug Giles
This past Friday Obama told the planet that he’s about to go medieval on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in a Full Monty AfPaki Attack. God, I hope so, both for our national security and for the sane Muslims who are sick of existing in squalor, blowing themselves up for a living, listening to clerics who are nuttier than squirrel turds, missing out on BLTs, and having their clitorises circumcised for "Allah." If I were a Muslim chick and heard that a knife was destined to be on my naughty bits when I hit puberty, I’d start planning a Shawshank escape. Hey, teacher, leave that clitoris alone! I have two words for that smack: in sane.
Yep, for the globe’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, I hope that under Obama’s command our boys rain hellfire and damnation—crusade style—down upon these un-evolved al-Qaeda and Taliban oxygen-stealing toads.
Having said that, I’m having a tough time buying our Teleprompter-in-Chief’s new rowdy persona. I pretty much think that all politicians currently sucking air from Barack to Blagojevich (and every scary clown in between) are full of more crap than a colicky kid’s Huggies. I have officially become what Steven Tyler would call, j-j-jaded (and they’re the ones who’ve jaded me).
As I was watching Obama outline how he plans on throttling Osama and the boys, I kept flashing back to Michael Jackson’s 1987 Bad video. Y’know, the one in which there was a great disparity between the lyrics and what they purported and the dude who was singing the song. Michael said he was bad, but it didn’t register with us rednecks. It just left us snickering.
Obama is saying he’s going to go Mach2, and as stated I hope he carries out what he lined out on Friday to the fullest extent. Heck, I’ll cheer him on if he’ll do half of what he said he’s going to do in this Global War on Terror. Wait, what’s that? We can’t call the war a War any longer or the terrorists . . . terrorists? Why not? It’s motivating for soldiers. It might not be for Pelosi’s babies, but the words "war" and "terror" are meat to the military.
Oh, so now it is an Overseas Contingency Operation? Well superkalafragilisticexpialadocious! (I don’t even know what that means, and I have dictionary.com’d it twice.) Let’s see: We’re overseas, doing an operation with contingencies. Scary, eh? Well, isn’t that special? Why stop there, PC police? Why not call it The Hello Kitty Campaign?
This politically correct hip and cool new nomenclature for killing terrorists in a war presupposes, I suppose, that such semantics will get dyed-in-the-wool terrorists to dial down (while pleasing the Eurosofties) by refusing to define the enemy as they really are, namely in-frickin’-sane terrorists.
For me it’s stuff like that, the PC shtick that makes me fear Obama’s going to waffle and not follow through once the fresh stuff hits the fan in Afghanistan. And Pakistan. That’s nuclearized Pakistan.
Let’s say we compromise, we, the civilian serfs of Obamaland, will call the war on terror an overseas contingency operation (wink, wink), but over there we’ll keep the PC BS out of it, por favor.
For the sake of our soldiers and planet, can we do the following?
1. Can we call it a war?
2. Can we call them terrorists?
3. Can we have a strategy to win? Is that too much to ask?
4. Can we not worry about helping their economy until we send the terrorists in and around the countries to an early hell?
5. Can we have one, not two or ten, but one, Pattonesque General in charge who doesn’t give a plug nickel what any Nancy from NATO thinks? Can our commanders command without fear they’ll go to jail if they hurt an enemy combatant’s feelings? They’re currently being tied up with more red tape than a female intern at Bill Clinton’s casa when Hillary’s out of town.
6. Can we shoot our guns 20 meters from their feet to get them to give us some intel to protect our troops (i.e. Capt. Roger Hill) if need be?
7. Can we keep producing nukes? According to Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, "The president is on a path to denuclearizing the United States by refusing to modernize the arsenal or even to fund fully the steps necessary to assure the viability of the weapons we have."
8. Can we continue the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy? Must we inject open homosexuality into the mix? What’s next? Pink camo patterns? Frank Gaffney again: "It is absolutely predictable that significant numbers of servicemen and women—including many of the most experienced commissioned and noncommissioned officers—will retire rather than serve in conditions of forced intimacy with individuals who may find them sexually attractive. The effect will be to break the all-volunteer force."
9. Can our DI’s continue to curse and yell at our recruits, please? Full Metal Jacket style? Have you ever thought that their inner child might need its ass kicked?
10. Can we keep up our spending for the military? Must we cut our military budget 10%? According to Frank Gaffney, "The cuts will preclude much, if not virtually all, of the modernization that will be required to prepare the U.S. military to contend with tomorrow's wars."
11. Can we keep Gitmo open for business?
12. Can we keep on waterboarding? Waterboarding ain’t torture. That’s what anyone who has ever water skied or wake boarded has had to go through. I know, in the spirit of PCness, let’s call it "teaching them to water ski" minus, you know, the skis, Coronas and the chicks in bikinis. We would get information from them and they would learn a skill, barefooting. It’s a twofer. When Obama heals the world, the "contingents" could then return to Suckistan and be a part of a heroin-funded Water Park and do daily shows. Thoughts? Say what? Their countries don’t have any water? Or fun or entertainment? Oh. Well, never mind.
13. Can we continue to play music like, "I’m proud to be an American" at our bases and in the theater still? Must we now play, "do you really wanna hurt me" or "why can’t we be friends"?
14. Can we refuse to appease uncut, unmellowed Muslims? According to Gaffney, "A ‘respectful’ Obama administration seems keen to embrace those in the Muslim Brotherhood and like-minded Islamist organizations who seek to impose the toxic theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls Shariah on distant populations and insinuate it into our country."
I believe if our commanding officers and soldiers are "allowed" to do the aforementioned that our ferocious fighters won’t be frustrated and our enemies will be eviscerated. If not, we could be headed for an AfPaki bog that would make Vietnam look like a tiff with the Vienna Boys’ Choir.
Lastly, I hope to God and all that is holy that Barack isn’t feigning a show of strength for republican applause or that this was some box to check off on his narcissistic bucket list or a pathetic diversionary dog wag to get our eyes off his admin’s mismanagement of our economic slop. Unfortunately, only time will tell.
March 29, 2009
THE AFPAKI ATTACK: WILL POLITICAL CORRECTNESS CASTRATE IT BEFORE IT BEGINS?
by Doug Giles
This past Friday Obama told the planet that he’s about to go medieval on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in a Full Monty AfPaki Attack. God, I hope so, both for our national security and for the sane Muslims who are sick of existing in squalor, blowing themselves up for a living, listening to clerics who are nuttier than squirrel turds, missing out on BLTs, and having their clitorises circumcised for "Allah." If I were a Muslim chick and heard that a knife was destined to be on my naughty bits when I hit puberty, I’d start planning a Shawshank escape. Hey, teacher, leave that clitoris alone! I have two words for that smack: in sane.
Yep, for the globe’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, I hope that under Obama’s command our boys rain hellfire and damnation—crusade style—down upon these un-evolved al-Qaeda and Taliban oxygen-stealing toads.
Having said that, I’m having a tough time buying our Teleprompter-in-Chief’s new rowdy persona. I pretty much think that all politicians currently sucking air from Barack to Blagojevich (and every scary clown in between) are full of more crap than a colicky kid’s Huggies. I have officially become what Steven Tyler would call, j-j-jaded (and they’re the ones who’ve jaded me).
As I was watching Obama outline how he plans on throttling Osama and the boys, I kept flashing back to Michael Jackson’s 1987 Bad video. Y’know, the one in which there was a great disparity between the lyrics and what they purported and the dude who was singing the song. Michael said he was bad, but it didn’t register with us rednecks. It just left us snickering.
Obama is saying he’s going to go Mach2, and as stated I hope he carries out what he lined out on Friday to the fullest extent. Heck, I’ll cheer him on if he’ll do half of what he said he’s going to do in this Global War on Terror. Wait, what’s that? We can’t call the war a War any longer or the terrorists . . . terrorists? Why not? It’s motivating for soldiers. It might not be for Pelosi’s babies, but the words "war" and "terror" are meat to the military.
Oh, so now it is an Overseas Contingency Operation? Well superkalafragilisticexpialadocious! (I don’t even know what that means, and I have dictionary.com’d it twice.) Let’s see: We’re overseas, doing an operation with contingencies. Scary, eh? Well, isn’t that special? Why stop there, PC police? Why not call it The Hello Kitty Campaign?
This politically correct hip and cool new nomenclature for killing terrorists in a war presupposes, I suppose, that such semantics will get dyed-in-the-wool terrorists to dial down (while pleasing the Eurosofties) by refusing to define the enemy as they really are, namely in-frickin’-sane terrorists.
For me it’s stuff like that, the PC shtick that makes me fear Obama’s going to waffle and not follow through once the fresh stuff hits the fan in Afghanistan. And Pakistan. That’s nuclearized Pakistan.
Let’s say we compromise, we, the civilian serfs of Obamaland, will call the war on terror an overseas contingency operation (wink, wink), but over there we’ll keep the PC BS out of it, por favor.
For the sake of our soldiers and planet, can we do the following?
1. Can we call it a war?
2. Can we call them terrorists?
3. Can we have a strategy to win? Is that too much to ask?
4. Can we not worry about helping their economy until we send the terrorists in and around the countries to an early hell?
5. Can we have one, not two or ten, but one, Pattonesque General in charge who doesn’t give a plug nickel what any Nancy from NATO thinks? Can our commanders command without fear they’ll go to jail if they hurt an enemy combatant’s feelings? They’re currently being tied up with more red tape than a female intern at Bill Clinton’s casa when Hillary’s out of town.
6. Can we shoot our guns 20 meters from their feet to get them to give us some intel to protect our troops (i.e. Capt. Roger Hill) if need be?
7. Can we keep producing nukes? According to Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, "The president is on a path to denuclearizing the United States by refusing to modernize the arsenal or even to fund fully the steps necessary to assure the viability of the weapons we have."
8. Can we continue the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy? Must we inject open homosexuality into the mix? What’s next? Pink camo patterns? Frank Gaffney again: "It is absolutely predictable that significant numbers of servicemen and women—including many of the most experienced commissioned and noncommissioned officers—will retire rather than serve in conditions of forced intimacy with individuals who may find them sexually attractive. The effect will be to break the all-volunteer force."
9. Can our DI’s continue to curse and yell at our recruits, please? Full Metal Jacket style? Have you ever thought that their inner child might need its ass kicked?
10. Can we keep up our spending for the military? Must we cut our military budget 10%? According to Frank Gaffney, "The cuts will preclude much, if not virtually all, of the modernization that will be required to prepare the U.S. military to contend with tomorrow's wars."
11. Can we keep Gitmo open for business?
12. Can we keep on waterboarding? Waterboarding ain’t torture. That’s what anyone who has ever water skied or wake boarded has had to go through. I know, in the spirit of PCness, let’s call it "teaching them to water ski" minus, you know, the skis, Coronas and the chicks in bikinis. We would get information from them and they would learn a skill, barefooting. It’s a twofer. When Obama heals the world, the "contingents" could then return to Suckistan and be a part of a heroin-funded Water Park and do daily shows. Thoughts? Say what? Their countries don’t have any water? Or fun or entertainment? Oh. Well, never mind.
13. Can we continue to play music like, "I’m proud to be an American" at our bases and in the theater still? Must we now play, "do you really wanna hurt me" or "why can’t we be friends"?
14. Can we refuse to appease uncut, unmellowed Muslims? According to Gaffney, "A ‘respectful’ Obama administration seems keen to embrace those in the Muslim Brotherhood and like-minded Islamist organizations who seek to impose the toxic theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls Shariah on distant populations and insinuate it into our country."
I believe if our commanding officers and soldiers are "allowed" to do the aforementioned that our ferocious fighters won’t be frustrated and our enemies will be eviscerated. If not, we could be headed for an AfPaki bog that would make Vietnam look like a tiff with the Vienna Boys’ Choir.
Lastly, I hope to God and all that is holy that Barack isn’t feigning a show of strength for republican applause or that this was some box to check off on his narcissistic bucket list or a pathetic diversionary dog wag to get our eyes off his admin’s mismanagement of our economic slop. Unfortunately, only time will tell.
Friday, March 27, 2009
DUDLEY DUMBASS DOORITE
Dallas police officer Dudley Dumbass Doorite goes strictly by the book. No red light runner rushing his family to a hospital is going to escape being delayed, lectured and cited by Doorite's long arm of the law. Normally, I would designate officer Robert Powell as "Asshole Cop of the Month," but he is too stupid to be an asshole.
How do some of these senseless and insensitive jerks get to be cops in the first place? What is so surprising about this ugly incident is that Dallas has the reputation of having the best educated police officers in Texas. If Powell has a college degree, he is just another example of an educated idiot spawned from a dumbed-down multi-cultural higher education system.
What is truly astounding is how much restraint Ryan Moats showed while being harangued with 13 minutes of Powell's horseshit. With so many professional football players running afoul of the law, Moats' exemplary behavior under very trying circumstances deserves a special recognition award from the NFL.
Here is a report on Doorite's by-the-book police work from The Dallas Morning News:
DALLAS POLICE CHIEF APOLOGIZES FOR CONDUCT OF OFFICER WHO DREW GUN ON NFL PLAYER OUTSIDE HOSPITAL
By Steve Thompson and Tanya Eiserer
March 27, 2009
As a storm of outrage gathered over his department, Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle called a news conference Thursday to apologize for the behavior of an officer who detained a distressed family outside a hospital emergency room.
Kunkle said Officer Robert Powell had been placed on paid administrative leave in connection with the incident last week, in which he stopped a family rushing to visit a dying mother, keeping them for 13 minutes to write a traffic ticket. The woman died before two of the family members were able to see her.
"I am embarrassed and disappointed by the behavior of one of our police officers," the chief told a packed audience of media outlets that included Inside Edition. "His behavior, in my opinion, did not exhibit the common sense, discretion, the compassion that we expect our officers to exhibit."
During the traffic stop, caught on the officer's in-car camera, Powell berated the driver, 26-year-old NFL running back Ryan Moats, and threatened him with arrest for running a traffic light.
After seeing the video earlier this week, several senior police commanders knew they had a public relations crisis on their hands. A Plano police officer who was present at the March 17 incident had reported it to a superior, who had reported it to a Dallas police supervisor.
After news of the video broke late Wednesday, irate calls and e-mails started spilling into police headquarters.
Shortly before 9 a.m. Thursday, at the department's weekly crime meeting, many members of the command staff viewed the video for the first time. The reaction was one of disbelief and head shaking, said several who were present.
"People were just quiet," said Assistant Chief Floyd Simpson, who oversees the city's seven patrol stations. "Just, 'Oh, my God, I can't believe what I just saw.' "
Kunkle took the podium hours later in front of a dozen news cameras. At one point, he seemed to restrain himself from being too candid with his views on the incident.
"When we in the command staff reviewed the tapes," he said, "we were embarrassed, disappointed – it's hard to find the right words and still be professional in my role as a police chief."
The chief also praised Moats and his family for how they handled the officer's behavior.
"They exercised extraordinary patience, restraint, dealing with the behavior of our officer," Kunkle said. "At no time did Mr. Moats identify himself as an NFL football player or expect any kind of special consideration. He handled himself very, very well."
The video shows what happened after Moats, who plays for the Houston Texans, rolled through a red light in Dallas en route to Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano. Powell switched on his lights and sirens, caught up to the family's SUV, and followed for about 20 seconds as they found a parking spot near the hospital's emergency entrance.
Moats' mother-in-law, 45-year-old Jonetta Collinsworth, had been struggling with breast cancer. That night family members received word that they needed to hurry to the hospital because she was dying.
"You really want to go through this right now?" Moats pleaded to Powell. "My mother-in-law is dying. Right now!"
An argument followed, during which Powell lectured Moats and threatened him with arrest.
Kunkle acknowledged Thursday that Powell also drew his gun at the start of the incident.
"I understand that he admits to drawing his gun but not pointing it," the chief said.
Moats' wife, Tamishia Moats, has said otherwise.
"He was pointing a gun at me as soon as I got out of the car," she said. The video shows her pleading with him a moment, then ignoring him and walking into the hospital with her great-aunt.
Kunkle said that for Powell to draw his gun at first may be defensible. The SUV had not immediately stopped for him. People were piling out of it. The situation was uncertain.
"But as quickly as possible, he should have holstered his gun and apologized, once he found out what the circumstances were," Kunkle said, "and then tried to accommodate the Moatses the best he could getting access into the hospital."
Instead, Powell spent long minutes exercising his authority over Ryan Moats, whose grandfather-in-law – the father of the dying woman – stayed behind with him out of concern for his safety, the family has said.
Powell, 25, has not returned calls. He has defended his actions to department officials.
"My understanding is that Officer Powell, even when he saw the videotape, believed he had not acted inappropriately," Kunkle said.
As the video reached a national audience Thursday, featured among other places on the home page of Yahoo.com, it became clear that many people disagreed. Thousands of comments poured onto The Dallas Morning News' Web site, most of them singling out Powell for derision.
"The majority of the comments reflect my position," said Kunkle, "that at the point the officer was told that they were responding to a dying family member, that should have been his concern: to allow those people to get access to that family member."
Police officials have contacted the Moats family to apologize, asked that the ticket be dismissed, and posted a statement of remorse on the department's Web page.
Asked at Thursday's news conference what officers are trained to do in such a situation, Kunkle said even someone with no police training should have known better than to do what Powell did.
"I don't know how you train for these circumstances, other than to hire people with common sense and good people skills," he said.
Department officials say the now-infamous video will likely make its way into the police academy's training curriculum.
Kunkle said the internal investigation against Powell will focus on conduct reflecting poorly on the department, as well as making unwarranted threats of arrest.
Powell also faces investigation for comments he made to another officer after the incident ended – while the video camera was still rolling. He said he "worded" a report in such a way as to justify a January police chase.
"It appears, what he said, to have been contrary to our pursuit policy," Kunkle said, "to where he may have lied about the circumstances under which the pursuit began."
The chief said any one of the charges could lead to dismissal.
WHAT THEY SAID: The traffic stop
Excerpts from Officer Robert Powell and Ryan Moats:
Moats: You really want to go through this right now? My mother-in-law is dying. Right now! ... I got seconds before she's dying, man!
Powell: If my mom was dying I'd probably be a little upset too, but when I saw flashing red and blues, I would stop.
Moats: Did I not stop at the red light?
Powell: You stopped, then you drove through the red light.
Moats: I stopped, I checked the traffic, I waved the traffic off, then I turned.
Powell: This is not an emergency vehicle. You do not have the right to control the traffic.
Moats: OK. All right ... just go ahead and check my insurance so I can go ahead and go. If you're gonna give me a ticket, give me a ticket. I really don't care, just ...
Powell: Your attitude says that you need one.
Moats: I don't have an attitude. All I'm asking you is just to hurry up. Cause you're standing here talking to me...
Powell: Shut your mouth and listen.
Moats: Shut my mouth? Is that how you talk to me, too?
Powell: Shut your mouth and listen. If you want to keep this going, I'll just put you in handcuffs, and I'll take you to jail for running a red light.
Moats: OK. All right.
Powell: I can do that.
Moats: OK.
Powell: State law says I can.
Moats: Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Powell: If you don't settle down that's what I'm gonna do.
Moats: Yes, sir.
Powell: All right, If you don't settle down, your truck's illegally parked – I'll tow that as well.
Moats: Yes, sir.
Powell: OK, I can screw you over. I'd rather not do that. Your attitude will dictate everything that happens, and right now, your attitude sucks.
Moats: Yes, sir.
Powell: OK, I turned my red and blues on as you were going over the bridge ...
Moats: You think I'm gonna stop when my wife's mother is dying?
Powell: You are required to stop. What you're doing does not matter. Red and blues, you have to stop. I can charge you with fleeing right now.
Moats: Yes, sir. ...
Powell: I can take you to jail. I can tow your truck. I can charge you with fleeing.
Moats: Yes, sir, you can. I understand.
Powell: I can make your night very difficult.
Moats: I hope you'll be a great person and not do that.
How do some of these senseless and insensitive jerks get to be cops in the first place? What is so surprising about this ugly incident is that Dallas has the reputation of having the best educated police officers in Texas. If Powell has a college degree, he is just another example of an educated idiot spawned from a dumbed-down multi-cultural higher education system.
What is truly astounding is how much restraint Ryan Moats showed while being harangued with 13 minutes of Powell's horseshit. With so many professional football players running afoul of the law, Moats' exemplary behavior under very trying circumstances deserves a special recognition award from the NFL.
Here is a report on Doorite's by-the-book police work from The Dallas Morning News:
DALLAS POLICE CHIEF APOLOGIZES FOR CONDUCT OF OFFICER WHO DREW GUN ON NFL PLAYER OUTSIDE HOSPITAL
By Steve Thompson and Tanya Eiserer
March 27, 2009
As a storm of outrage gathered over his department, Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle called a news conference Thursday to apologize for the behavior of an officer who detained a distressed family outside a hospital emergency room.
Kunkle said Officer Robert Powell had been placed on paid administrative leave in connection with the incident last week, in which he stopped a family rushing to visit a dying mother, keeping them for 13 minutes to write a traffic ticket. The woman died before two of the family members were able to see her.
"I am embarrassed and disappointed by the behavior of one of our police officers," the chief told a packed audience of media outlets that included Inside Edition. "His behavior, in my opinion, did not exhibit the common sense, discretion, the compassion that we expect our officers to exhibit."
During the traffic stop, caught on the officer's in-car camera, Powell berated the driver, 26-year-old NFL running back Ryan Moats, and threatened him with arrest for running a traffic light.
After seeing the video earlier this week, several senior police commanders knew they had a public relations crisis on their hands. A Plano police officer who was present at the March 17 incident had reported it to a superior, who had reported it to a Dallas police supervisor.
After news of the video broke late Wednesday, irate calls and e-mails started spilling into police headquarters.
Shortly before 9 a.m. Thursday, at the department's weekly crime meeting, many members of the command staff viewed the video for the first time. The reaction was one of disbelief and head shaking, said several who were present.
"People were just quiet," said Assistant Chief Floyd Simpson, who oversees the city's seven patrol stations. "Just, 'Oh, my God, I can't believe what I just saw.' "
Kunkle took the podium hours later in front of a dozen news cameras. At one point, he seemed to restrain himself from being too candid with his views on the incident.
"When we in the command staff reviewed the tapes," he said, "we were embarrassed, disappointed – it's hard to find the right words and still be professional in my role as a police chief."
The chief also praised Moats and his family for how they handled the officer's behavior.
"They exercised extraordinary patience, restraint, dealing with the behavior of our officer," Kunkle said. "At no time did Mr. Moats identify himself as an NFL football player or expect any kind of special consideration. He handled himself very, very well."
The video shows what happened after Moats, who plays for the Houston Texans, rolled through a red light in Dallas en route to Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano. Powell switched on his lights and sirens, caught up to the family's SUV, and followed for about 20 seconds as they found a parking spot near the hospital's emergency entrance.
Moats' mother-in-law, 45-year-old Jonetta Collinsworth, had been struggling with breast cancer. That night family members received word that they needed to hurry to the hospital because she was dying.
"You really want to go through this right now?" Moats pleaded to Powell. "My mother-in-law is dying. Right now!"
An argument followed, during which Powell lectured Moats and threatened him with arrest.
Kunkle acknowledged Thursday that Powell also drew his gun at the start of the incident.
"I understand that he admits to drawing his gun but not pointing it," the chief said.
Moats' wife, Tamishia Moats, has said otherwise.
"He was pointing a gun at me as soon as I got out of the car," she said. The video shows her pleading with him a moment, then ignoring him and walking into the hospital with her great-aunt.
Kunkle said that for Powell to draw his gun at first may be defensible. The SUV had not immediately stopped for him. People were piling out of it. The situation was uncertain.
"But as quickly as possible, he should have holstered his gun and apologized, once he found out what the circumstances were," Kunkle said, "and then tried to accommodate the Moatses the best he could getting access into the hospital."
Instead, Powell spent long minutes exercising his authority over Ryan Moats, whose grandfather-in-law – the father of the dying woman – stayed behind with him out of concern for his safety, the family has said.
Powell, 25, has not returned calls. He has defended his actions to department officials.
"My understanding is that Officer Powell, even when he saw the videotape, believed he had not acted inappropriately," Kunkle said.
As the video reached a national audience Thursday, featured among other places on the home page of Yahoo.com, it became clear that many people disagreed. Thousands of comments poured onto The Dallas Morning News' Web site, most of them singling out Powell for derision.
"The majority of the comments reflect my position," said Kunkle, "that at the point the officer was told that they were responding to a dying family member, that should have been his concern: to allow those people to get access to that family member."
Police officials have contacted the Moats family to apologize, asked that the ticket be dismissed, and posted a statement of remorse on the department's Web page.
Asked at Thursday's news conference what officers are trained to do in such a situation, Kunkle said even someone with no police training should have known better than to do what Powell did.
"I don't know how you train for these circumstances, other than to hire people with common sense and good people skills," he said.
Department officials say the now-infamous video will likely make its way into the police academy's training curriculum.
Kunkle said the internal investigation against Powell will focus on conduct reflecting poorly on the department, as well as making unwarranted threats of arrest.
Powell also faces investigation for comments he made to another officer after the incident ended – while the video camera was still rolling. He said he "worded" a report in such a way as to justify a January police chase.
"It appears, what he said, to have been contrary to our pursuit policy," Kunkle said, "to where he may have lied about the circumstances under which the pursuit began."
The chief said any one of the charges could lead to dismissal.
WHAT THEY SAID: The traffic stop
Excerpts from Officer Robert Powell and Ryan Moats:
Moats: You really want to go through this right now? My mother-in-law is dying. Right now! ... I got seconds before she's dying, man!
Powell: If my mom was dying I'd probably be a little upset too, but when I saw flashing red and blues, I would stop.
Moats: Did I not stop at the red light?
Powell: You stopped, then you drove through the red light.
Moats: I stopped, I checked the traffic, I waved the traffic off, then I turned.
Powell: This is not an emergency vehicle. You do not have the right to control the traffic.
Moats: OK. All right ... just go ahead and check my insurance so I can go ahead and go. If you're gonna give me a ticket, give me a ticket. I really don't care, just ...
Powell: Your attitude says that you need one.
Moats: I don't have an attitude. All I'm asking you is just to hurry up. Cause you're standing here talking to me...
Powell: Shut your mouth and listen.
Moats: Shut my mouth? Is that how you talk to me, too?
Powell: Shut your mouth and listen. If you want to keep this going, I'll just put you in handcuffs, and I'll take you to jail for running a red light.
Moats: OK. All right.
Powell: I can do that.
Moats: OK.
Powell: State law says I can.
Moats: Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Powell: If you don't settle down that's what I'm gonna do.
Moats: Yes, sir.
Powell: All right, If you don't settle down, your truck's illegally parked – I'll tow that as well.
Moats: Yes, sir.
Powell: OK, I can screw you over. I'd rather not do that. Your attitude will dictate everything that happens, and right now, your attitude sucks.
Moats: Yes, sir.
Powell: OK, I turned my red and blues on as you were going over the bridge ...
Moats: You think I'm gonna stop when my wife's mother is dying?
Powell: You are required to stop. What you're doing does not matter. Red and blues, you have to stop. I can charge you with fleeing right now.
Moats: Yes, sir. ...
Powell: I can take you to jail. I can tow your truck. I can charge you with fleeing.
Moats: Yes, sir, you can. I understand.
Powell: I can make your night very difficult.
Moats: I hope you'll be a great person and not do that.
ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS CALIFORNIA PAROLEES ARE NOT SUPERVISED
Los Angles Times
OAKLAND POLICE SHOOTINGS STOKE CRITICISM OF PAROLE OVERSIGHT
In November, Lovelle Mixon finished serving a 9-month sentence for violating parole. By late February, his parole officer had lost track of him. A month later, he killed four Oakland police officers.
By Andrew Blankstein and Maria L. LaGanga
March 24, 2009
Lovelle Mixon spent much of the last decade cycling in and out of state prison. His last stint ended in November, when he was released on parole.
By the time Oakland motorcycle officers pulled over the 26-year-old former janitor Saturday afternoon, he was a wanted man again -- this time for missing numerous appointments with his parole officer.
Authorities say Mixon opened fire on the two officers, killing them and later fatally wounding two SWAT officers who stormed the apartment in which he was hiding.
The case is raising new questions about the state's parole system, which critics say does a poor job of monitoring offenders once they leave prison.
There are more than 16,725 people in California wanted on various parole violations -- including 164 in Oakland and 6,532 in Los Angeles County.
California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, a former mayor of Oakland, said authorities have long struggled to monitor the movements of parolees such as Mixon -- violent offenders with a pattern of committing new crimes.
"I think that's one of the darker secrets of the whole prison industry, that the . . . people who are let out are not well-supervised in many cases, although not all," Brown said. "The supervision isn't there. The surveillance isn't there. The job training and preparation is not there."
Officials fear the problem will get worse if budget cuts cause the early release of more inmates from jails and prisons.
There are about 122,000 parolees on the streets in California, according to the most recent report from the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. About 12% of them have violated the terms of their parole and are considered at large. Warrants have been issued for their arrest, but many will remain on the streets for weeks and months.
The parole officer handling Mixon's case was responsible for 70 parolees, 18 of whom were classified as high-risk. Experts say the 70-to-1 ratio is average for parole officers in large California cities.
Oakland police spend much time looking for wanted parolees, Brown said, taking away from their other crime-fighting duties.
"When I was mayor, there was a third of the parolees, from the moment they get to Oakland, they're on the run," he said. "That then burdens the police with having to chase them as well as doing their other work."
Scott Kernan, undersecretary of operations for the Department of Corrections, said Monday that the state's 2,200 parole agents generally do a good job of tracking their parolees, as well as helping them find jobs and integrate back into society.
"This is obviously a terrible tragedy," Kernan said of the four officers' deaths. Corrections officials released a timeline showing at least eight contacts between Mixon and his parole agent after his release Nov. 1.
Mixon had served a nine-month sentence for violating the terms of his parole.Mixon had previously served a six-year state prison sentence for assault with a firearm. He was also a suspect in a murder in Alameda County, but prosecutors did not have enough evidence to charge him in the case, Kernan said.
Earlier this year, Mixon submitted to a series of drug tests and was referred to two employment agencies.
But on Feb. 18, his parole agent showed up at his mother's home and was unable to locate him. After two additional attempts to contact Mixon, authorities on Feb. 27 issued an arrest warrant, and the state revoked his parole. His case was referred to the state's Fugitive Apprehension Team.
The week of March 6, the team and Oakland police officers visited three addresses where Mixon was thought to have been, including his mother's home. A week later, state officials contacted U.S. marshals after receiving a report that he could have been in the Auburn, Wash., area.
It turned out Mixon was in Oakland all along. On March 21, he was pulled over for a routine traffic stop, leading to the shootings that ultimately claimed the lives of four Oakland police officers, along with Mixon. Oakland police said Monday that a day before the shooting, detectives had connected Mixon's DNA to an unsolved rape case. It's unclear whether the two motorcycle officers knew this when they pulled him over.
Brown said officials need to be more selective about granting parole to violent offenders -- and more aggressive about tracking them once they leave prison. At one point, the department tried a pilot program of placing GPS bracelets on gang-member parolees to monitor their movements. It was not continued.
"The big failure is in the preparation of the people they release," Brown said. "And in the control and supervision of the people they release. This is a problem not just for Oakland but for the whole state.
L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca said local authorities need to work more closely with parolees to get them reintegrated into community life.
"You have to start with programming," Baca said, referring to job and other social programs for parolees. "Without that contact, you are [adding to the] paranoia that they are going back to prison. It puts law enforcement in the direct line of fire."
Times staff writers Richard Winton and Garrett Therolf contributed to this report.
OAKLAND POLICE SHOOTINGS STOKE CRITICISM OF PAROLE OVERSIGHT
In November, Lovelle Mixon finished serving a 9-month sentence for violating parole. By late February, his parole officer had lost track of him. A month later, he killed four Oakland police officers.
By Andrew Blankstein and Maria L. LaGanga
March 24, 2009
Lovelle Mixon spent much of the last decade cycling in and out of state prison. His last stint ended in November, when he was released on parole.
By the time Oakland motorcycle officers pulled over the 26-year-old former janitor Saturday afternoon, he was a wanted man again -- this time for missing numerous appointments with his parole officer.
Authorities say Mixon opened fire on the two officers, killing them and later fatally wounding two SWAT officers who stormed the apartment in which he was hiding.
The case is raising new questions about the state's parole system, which critics say does a poor job of monitoring offenders once they leave prison.
There are more than 16,725 people in California wanted on various parole violations -- including 164 in Oakland and 6,532 in Los Angeles County.
California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, a former mayor of Oakland, said authorities have long struggled to monitor the movements of parolees such as Mixon -- violent offenders with a pattern of committing new crimes.
"I think that's one of the darker secrets of the whole prison industry, that the . . . people who are let out are not well-supervised in many cases, although not all," Brown said. "The supervision isn't there. The surveillance isn't there. The job training and preparation is not there."
Officials fear the problem will get worse if budget cuts cause the early release of more inmates from jails and prisons.
There are about 122,000 parolees on the streets in California, according to the most recent report from the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. About 12% of them have violated the terms of their parole and are considered at large. Warrants have been issued for their arrest, but many will remain on the streets for weeks and months.
The parole officer handling Mixon's case was responsible for 70 parolees, 18 of whom were classified as high-risk. Experts say the 70-to-1 ratio is average for parole officers in large California cities.
Oakland police spend much time looking for wanted parolees, Brown said, taking away from their other crime-fighting duties.
"When I was mayor, there was a third of the parolees, from the moment they get to Oakland, they're on the run," he said. "That then burdens the police with having to chase them as well as doing their other work."
Scott Kernan, undersecretary of operations for the Department of Corrections, said Monday that the state's 2,200 parole agents generally do a good job of tracking their parolees, as well as helping them find jobs and integrate back into society.
"This is obviously a terrible tragedy," Kernan said of the four officers' deaths. Corrections officials released a timeline showing at least eight contacts between Mixon and his parole agent after his release Nov. 1.
Mixon had served a nine-month sentence for violating the terms of his parole.Mixon had previously served a six-year state prison sentence for assault with a firearm. He was also a suspect in a murder in Alameda County, but prosecutors did not have enough evidence to charge him in the case, Kernan said.
Earlier this year, Mixon submitted to a series of drug tests and was referred to two employment agencies.
But on Feb. 18, his parole agent showed up at his mother's home and was unable to locate him. After two additional attempts to contact Mixon, authorities on Feb. 27 issued an arrest warrant, and the state revoked his parole. His case was referred to the state's Fugitive Apprehension Team.
The week of March 6, the team and Oakland police officers visited three addresses where Mixon was thought to have been, including his mother's home. A week later, state officials contacted U.S. marshals after receiving a report that he could have been in the Auburn, Wash., area.
It turned out Mixon was in Oakland all along. On March 21, he was pulled over for a routine traffic stop, leading to the shootings that ultimately claimed the lives of four Oakland police officers, along with Mixon. Oakland police said Monday that a day before the shooting, detectives had connected Mixon's DNA to an unsolved rape case. It's unclear whether the two motorcycle officers knew this when they pulled him over.
Brown said officials need to be more selective about granting parole to violent offenders -- and more aggressive about tracking them once they leave prison. At one point, the department tried a pilot program of placing GPS bracelets on gang-member parolees to monitor their movements. It was not continued.
"The big failure is in the preparation of the people they release," Brown said. "And in the control and supervision of the people they release. This is a problem not just for Oakland but for the whole state.
L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca said local authorities need to work more closely with parolees to get them reintegrated into community life.
"You have to start with programming," Baca said, referring to job and other social programs for parolees. "Without that contact, you are [adding to the] paranoia that they are going back to prison. It puts law enforcement in the direct line of fire."
Times staff writers Richard Winton and Garrett Therolf contributed to this report.
DRUG CARTELS DO NOT GET MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS FROM TEXAS GUN DEALERS
I've predicted that the ban on assault rifles will be reinstated because of the Oakland police deaths and the allegations that Mexican drug cartels get their military-style weapons mainly from Texas gun dealers.
In today's Townhall.com, David Harsanyi has a column which debunks the claims that the drug cartels obtain those weapons from the USA. Although his column advocates an end to the War on Drugs, his remarks on how the stream of deadly arms reaches the Mexican cartels is well worth noting.
Here, excerpted from Harsanyi's "Make Sense, Not War" column, is what he wrote about the supply of arms to the cartels:
....Washington never wastes a crisis. The erupting violence south of the border has allowed certain politicians a chance to climb on the anti-gun hobbyhorse, as well. We are, if you haven't heard, unable to prevent the massive shipments of weapons to Mexico.
The problem with this well-known fact is that it's highly dubious.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week, titled "Law Enforcement Responses to Mexican Drug Cartels," one senator after another tried to induce law enforcement officials, who have every motivation to play along, to claim that military-style arms are streaming into Mexico from the United States.
Not one expert agreed.
The Los Angeles Times, in fact, recently reported that the "enhanced weaponry" used by drug cartels "represents a wide sampling from the international arms bazaar, with grenades and launchers produced by U.S., South Korean, Israeli, Spanish or former Soviet bloc manufacturers. Many had been sold legally to governments, including Mexico's, and then were diverted onto the black market."
In today's Townhall.com, David Harsanyi has a column which debunks the claims that the drug cartels obtain those weapons from the USA. Although his column advocates an end to the War on Drugs, his remarks on how the stream of deadly arms reaches the Mexican cartels is well worth noting.
Here, excerpted from Harsanyi's "Make Sense, Not War" column, is what he wrote about the supply of arms to the cartels:
....Washington never wastes a crisis. The erupting violence south of the border has allowed certain politicians a chance to climb on the anti-gun hobbyhorse, as well. We are, if you haven't heard, unable to prevent the massive shipments of weapons to Mexico.
The problem with this well-known fact is that it's highly dubious.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week, titled "Law Enforcement Responses to Mexican Drug Cartels," one senator after another tried to induce law enforcement officials, who have every motivation to play along, to claim that military-style arms are streaming into Mexico from the United States.
Not one expert agreed.
The Los Angeles Times, in fact, recently reported that the "enhanced weaponry" used by drug cartels "represents a wide sampling from the international arms bazaar, with grenades and launchers produced by U.S., South Korean, Israeli, Spanish or former Soviet bloc manufacturers. Many had been sold legally to governments, including Mexico's, and then were diverted onto the black market."
QUICK FIX
From the St. Petersburg Times: We asked for your ideas to fix the economy. You sent back far more than we could print. Some of you were serious. Some of you were kidding (we think). As Congress sends President Obama a stimulus package nearing $1-trillion, you have plans of your own: Raise taxes! Slash taxes! Make China pay! Make athletes pay! Invest in bullet trains, nuclear reactors and missions to space! Or, marijuana could save us. See what you think.
I am reproducing one respondent's fix. He may have been kidding, but..........
St. Petersburg Times
FIXES FOR THE ECONOMIC FIX WE'RE IN
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Patriotic retirement:
There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force … pay them $1 million apiece severance with stipulations.
They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings — unemployment fixed.
They buy new American cars. Forty million cars ordered — auto industry fixed.
They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage — housing crisis fixed.
David Otterson, Largo
I am reproducing one respondent's fix. He may have been kidding, but..........
St. Petersburg Times
FIXES FOR THE ECONOMIC FIX WE'RE IN
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Patriotic retirement:
There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force … pay them $1 million apiece severance with stipulations.
They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings — unemployment fixed.
They buy new American cars. Forty million cars ordered — auto industry fixed.
They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage — housing crisis fixed.
David Otterson, Largo
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
PROOF THAT MAN EVOLVED FROM APES
In a previous blog, "Dumbing Down Our Science Classes" (11-8-08), I wrote about how the Christian conservative creationists on the Texas State Board of Education were trying to insert the teaching of "Intelligent Design" - a euphemism for creationism - alongside Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Well, according to Lisa Falkenberg's commentary in yesterday's Houston Chronicle, they are at it again.
The creationists on the education board are trying to convert Genesis to science. What they are really doing is to prove that Darwin was right. To me it is obvious that within some species there are those that evolve much slower than others. Apparently, the brains of the social conservative board members have not developed beyond the brains of apes from which some believe man has evolved.
Here is Lisa Falkenberg's Chronicle commentary:
EDUCATION BOARD A DANGEROUS SIDESHOW
by Lisa Falkenberg
Ever seen a cat-dog? Of course not! That just proves it’s impossible for one species to evolve into another.
The human brain seems not to have changed since homo sapiens first appeared 150,000 years ago. That means evolution is false.
We don’t have every bone, so the fossil record undercuts the theory of evolution.
A few scientists have fudged proof of evolution, so that calls into question all the other evidence.
These are the brilliant observations and insinuations of a particularly dangerous right-wing fringe group: the seven-member social conservative bloc of the State Board of Education. (The cat-dog example, if you must know, is the brainchild of Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, who seems to be incapable of understanding that it takes millions, if not billions of years for so-called macro-evolution to occur.)
If the Legislature is the circus, the Board of Education is the sideshow. And this week, they’re back in town.
The event in Austin would be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high.
The 15 board members hold in their hands the future of science curriculum in Texas public schools for the next decade. This week, after what promises to be another intense round of debate, they’ll cast final votes on how to teach evolution.
Their decision has national implications as well since curriculum changes could make it into textbooks tailored for the massive Texas market and sold across the country.
In January, creationists on the board tentatively failed by one vote to keep a requirement that teachers present the strengths and so-called "weaknesses" of Darwin’s 150-year-old theory of evolution. This week, they’ll try to restore the language, which is the latest subtle weapon of creationists and subscribers to the religion-based theory of Intelligent Design.
The effort to retain the "weaknesses" language, which ignored the advice of a board-selected panel of experts, failed last time thanks to four swing voters. They included one Democrat, Rick Agosto of San Antonio, who often votes with social conservatives, and three brave Republicans, Bob Craig of Lubbock, Patricia Hardy of Fort Worth and Geraldine Miller of Dallas.
Apparently, this group actually did their homework, listened to the experts, and sided with science over ideology. But they’ve paid a price. Agosto risks falling out of favor with board officers. And the Republicans have had everything from their party loyalty to their faith in God questioned as a result of their vote.
DOUBTING FOSSIL RECORD
And just in case there was ever any doubt that this debate was essentially about politics, even the Texas Republican Party has weighed in on the issue. GOP leaders passed a resolution urging the board to overturn its decision to get rid of the "weaknesses" language.
The conservative bloc also will try and keep two amendments hastily presented and approved in January that cast doubt on the fossil record and a basic tenant of Darwin’s theory: common descent.
Board Chairman and ardent Darwin-denier Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, pushed through one of the amendments after reading aloud a long list of quotes attempting to cast doubt on evolution from reputable science publications and authoritative books by revered scientists. McLeroy never directly claimed that he culled the quotes himself. But as he held up the books he was quoting from, and talked about checking out volumes on evolution at his local library, I certainly got the impression he’d done his own research.
COPIED RESEARCH?
But blogger and Kansas biology teacher, Jeremy Mohn, revealed McLeroy’s bad clip job in his extensive blog posting, "Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine." Mohn also provided the context and authors’ explanations lacking in McLeroy’s quote list.
Mohn discovered McLeroy had lifted much of the research from another creationist blog. McLeroy’s quotes were in virtually the same order, and he repeated a page number error.
McLeroy acknowledged to me that he had copied some of the research from the creationist site because he liked "the format," although he said he had indeed read one of the books. He added: "A lot of the quotes I did get on my own."
Yet another fine testament to the level of scholarship that goes on at the State Board of Education.
The creationists on the education board are trying to convert Genesis to science. What they are really doing is to prove that Darwin was right. To me it is obvious that within some species there are those that evolve much slower than others. Apparently, the brains of the social conservative board members have not developed beyond the brains of apes from which some believe man has evolved.
Here is Lisa Falkenberg's Chronicle commentary:
EDUCATION BOARD A DANGEROUS SIDESHOW
by Lisa Falkenberg
Ever seen a cat-dog? Of course not! That just proves it’s impossible for one species to evolve into another.
The human brain seems not to have changed since homo sapiens first appeared 150,000 years ago. That means evolution is false.
We don’t have every bone, so the fossil record undercuts the theory of evolution.
A few scientists have fudged proof of evolution, so that calls into question all the other evidence.
These are the brilliant observations and insinuations of a particularly dangerous right-wing fringe group: the seven-member social conservative bloc of the State Board of Education. (The cat-dog example, if you must know, is the brainchild of Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, who seems to be incapable of understanding that it takes millions, if not billions of years for so-called macro-evolution to occur.)
If the Legislature is the circus, the Board of Education is the sideshow. And this week, they’re back in town.
The event in Austin would be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high.
The 15 board members hold in their hands the future of science curriculum in Texas public schools for the next decade. This week, after what promises to be another intense round of debate, they’ll cast final votes on how to teach evolution.
Their decision has national implications as well since curriculum changes could make it into textbooks tailored for the massive Texas market and sold across the country.
In January, creationists on the board tentatively failed by one vote to keep a requirement that teachers present the strengths and so-called "weaknesses" of Darwin’s 150-year-old theory of evolution. This week, they’ll try to restore the language, which is the latest subtle weapon of creationists and subscribers to the religion-based theory of Intelligent Design.
The effort to retain the "weaknesses" language, which ignored the advice of a board-selected panel of experts, failed last time thanks to four swing voters. They included one Democrat, Rick Agosto of San Antonio, who often votes with social conservatives, and three brave Republicans, Bob Craig of Lubbock, Patricia Hardy of Fort Worth and Geraldine Miller of Dallas.
Apparently, this group actually did their homework, listened to the experts, and sided with science over ideology. But they’ve paid a price. Agosto risks falling out of favor with board officers. And the Republicans have had everything from their party loyalty to their faith in God questioned as a result of their vote.
DOUBTING FOSSIL RECORD
And just in case there was ever any doubt that this debate was essentially about politics, even the Texas Republican Party has weighed in on the issue. GOP leaders passed a resolution urging the board to overturn its decision to get rid of the "weaknesses" language.
The conservative bloc also will try and keep two amendments hastily presented and approved in January that cast doubt on the fossil record and a basic tenant of Darwin’s theory: common descent.
Board Chairman and ardent Darwin-denier Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, pushed through one of the amendments after reading aloud a long list of quotes attempting to cast doubt on evolution from reputable science publications and authoritative books by revered scientists. McLeroy never directly claimed that he culled the quotes himself. But as he held up the books he was quoting from, and talked about checking out volumes on evolution at his local library, I certainly got the impression he’d done his own research.
COPIED RESEARCH?
But blogger and Kansas biology teacher, Jeremy Mohn, revealed McLeroy’s bad clip job in his extensive blog posting, "Collapse of a Texas Quote Mine." Mohn also provided the context and authors’ explanations lacking in McLeroy’s quote list.
Mohn discovered McLeroy had lifted much of the research from another creationist blog. McLeroy’s quotes were in virtually the same order, and he repeated a page number error.
McLeroy acknowledged to me that he had copied some of the research from the creationist site because he liked "the format," although he said he had indeed read one of the books. He added: "A lot of the quotes I did get on my own."
Yet another fine testament to the level of scholarship that goes on at the State Board of Education.
PAPER PAROLE......HE MISSED A MANDATORY MEETING
Lovelle Mixon, the 26-year-old parolee who killed four Oakland police officers, had an extensive criminal record which included convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, possession of marijuana, auto theft, identity theft, forgery, grand theft and numerous offenses as a juvenile. After serving nearly five years in prison for assault with a firearm during an armed robbery he was released on parole. Mixon was returned to prison for nine months as a parole violator before being re-paroled last November.
According to the Los Angeles Times, a warrant had been issued for Mixon's arrest because "he missed a mandatory meeting with his (parole) agent las month amd was deemed a 'parolee at large'." A mandatory meeting? This tells me that Mixon's parole supervision was limited primarily to office visits. In that case, he was receiving what is known as a "paper parole."
What is a paper parole? It is a parole based not on field investigations, but on the periodic written reports required of all parole officers, reports which rely on information provided by the parolee during office visits. Since the overriding purpose of parole is to PROTECT THE PUBLIC from criminals, a paper parole is meaningless and absolutely worthless! However, this is not say that had Mixon been given adequate field supervison, the four Oakland officers would still be alive.
A parole officer cannot ascertain what a parolee is really doing through office visits, or even with field visits made by appointment.
During an office visit the parolee is most likley to say that things are going well, that he is living with his wife and kids or his parents, and that he is working at Earl Scheib's auto paint and body shop. In fact, he may not be living where he says he is and he may not be working at all. Except for those few instances when it may be psychologically advantageous to see a parolee on the parole officer's turf, office visits can be scrapped for all the good they do.
And those field visits by appointment don't help much either. The appointments are often made by phone calls to family members telling them when the parole officer will show up, That will give the parolee time to clean up his act so he can, with the cooperation of family members, appear to be living with them, when in fact he is not. Wives or parents will usually lie to parole officers to keep the parolee from being returned to prison.
If the supervison of parolees is reduced to a paper parole, there can only be two reasons for such a sad state of affairs. One reason would be that there are not an adequate number of parole officers, thus leaving the officers with unmanageable large case loads. The other reason is that the parole officers are afraid to visit parolees, especially at nights, in dangerous high-crime neighborhoods.
Most parolees do not live in middle-class or wealthy neighborhoods. I suspect the reason for paper paroles is that parole officers, especially the sissy social worker types, are scared shitless of getting shot, stabbed or stomped. If a parole officer is afraid to go out at nights to visit a parolee, then he has chosen the wrong profession. He should consider some other line of work, like passing out checks at the welfare office.
PAROLE WORK IS NOT FOR SISSIES! It requires men and women WITH GUTS! Meaningful parole supervision requires a work schedule other than the usual 8 AM to 5 PM, Monday through Friday work week. It requires surprise nighttime field visits, not appointed ones, to ascertain how a parolee is actually doing. And some of those surprise visits should be conducted on weekends.
The best way to avoid paper paroles is to stop hiring people with Master of Social Work (MSW) degrees to supervise parolees. Well educated cops and correctional officers are best suited for this line of work. They are much more likely to have the courage to go out at nights into dangerous neighborhoods. The MSW is going to feel that he didn't go to college for five years to get the shit kicked out of him. The ex-cop and ex-correctional officer is willing to face the challenge of a dangerous job, just as he did in his former occupation.
I don't know if the State of New York still uses the dual parole system it used back when I was a California Parole Agent. Each parolee in New York was, in effect, supervised by two parole officers. One officer, usually an MSW, took care of the parolee's social work needs. The other officer was an investigative officer who went out into the field to ascertain whether or not the parolee was reinvolved in criminal activities. That worked out rather well. It was not at all unusal for a parolee to be arrested by the investigative parole officer at the same time the sissy social worker was filling out his report on how well the parolee was doing.
Again, I am not contending that if Mixon's parole had been closely supervised with surprise nighttime field visits, he would not have ended up gunning down the four Oakland police officers. However, I think it is fair to say that the four offices might still be alive today had Mixon been the recipient of adequate parole field supervison. Anyway you cut it though, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the police and the public are endangered whenever the supervision of parolees is reduced to nothing more than a paper parole.
According to the Los Angeles Times, a warrant had been issued for Mixon's arrest because "he missed a mandatory meeting with his (parole) agent las month amd was deemed a 'parolee at large'." A mandatory meeting? This tells me that Mixon's parole supervision was limited primarily to office visits. In that case, he was receiving what is known as a "paper parole."
What is a paper parole? It is a parole based not on field investigations, but on the periodic written reports required of all parole officers, reports which rely on information provided by the parolee during office visits. Since the overriding purpose of parole is to PROTECT THE PUBLIC from criminals, a paper parole is meaningless and absolutely worthless! However, this is not say that had Mixon been given adequate field supervison, the four Oakland officers would still be alive.
A parole officer cannot ascertain what a parolee is really doing through office visits, or even with field visits made by appointment.
During an office visit the parolee is most likley to say that things are going well, that he is living with his wife and kids or his parents, and that he is working at Earl Scheib's auto paint and body shop. In fact, he may not be living where he says he is and he may not be working at all. Except for those few instances when it may be psychologically advantageous to see a parolee on the parole officer's turf, office visits can be scrapped for all the good they do.
And those field visits by appointment don't help much either. The appointments are often made by phone calls to family members telling them when the parole officer will show up, That will give the parolee time to clean up his act so he can, with the cooperation of family members, appear to be living with them, when in fact he is not. Wives or parents will usually lie to parole officers to keep the parolee from being returned to prison.
If the supervison of parolees is reduced to a paper parole, there can only be two reasons for such a sad state of affairs. One reason would be that there are not an adequate number of parole officers, thus leaving the officers with unmanageable large case loads. The other reason is that the parole officers are afraid to visit parolees, especially at nights, in dangerous high-crime neighborhoods.
Most parolees do not live in middle-class or wealthy neighborhoods. I suspect the reason for paper paroles is that parole officers, especially the sissy social worker types, are scared shitless of getting shot, stabbed or stomped. If a parole officer is afraid to go out at nights to visit a parolee, then he has chosen the wrong profession. He should consider some other line of work, like passing out checks at the welfare office.
PAROLE WORK IS NOT FOR SISSIES! It requires men and women WITH GUTS! Meaningful parole supervision requires a work schedule other than the usual 8 AM to 5 PM, Monday through Friday work week. It requires surprise nighttime field visits, not appointed ones, to ascertain how a parolee is actually doing. And some of those surprise visits should be conducted on weekends.
The best way to avoid paper paroles is to stop hiring people with Master of Social Work (MSW) degrees to supervise parolees. Well educated cops and correctional officers are best suited for this line of work. They are much more likely to have the courage to go out at nights into dangerous neighborhoods. The MSW is going to feel that he didn't go to college for five years to get the shit kicked out of him. The ex-cop and ex-correctional officer is willing to face the challenge of a dangerous job, just as he did in his former occupation.
I don't know if the State of New York still uses the dual parole system it used back when I was a California Parole Agent. Each parolee in New York was, in effect, supervised by two parole officers. One officer, usually an MSW, took care of the parolee's social work needs. The other officer was an investigative officer who went out into the field to ascertain whether or not the parolee was reinvolved in criminal activities. That worked out rather well. It was not at all unusal for a parolee to be arrested by the investigative parole officer at the same time the sissy social worker was filling out his report on how well the parolee was doing.
Again, I am not contending that if Mixon's parole had been closely supervised with surprise nighttime field visits, he would not have ended up gunning down the four Oakland police officers. However, I think it is fair to say that the four offices might still be alive today had Mixon been the recipient of adequate parole field supervison. Anyway you cut it though, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the police and the public are endangered whenever the supervision of parolees is reduced to nothing more than a paper parole.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
MORE DETAILS ON THE OAKLAND COP KILLINGS
In his comments on my blog "Parolee Guns Down Oakland Cops" (3-22-09), blogger Tom said....Any word on if any flash bangs were used or gas grenades before they attempted a dynamic entry? I am reproducing some excerpts from an extensive Los Angeles Times report by Maria La Ganga and Peter King which recounts the bloody chain of events in more detail than my earlier blog.
A resident across the hall from the apartment where the parolee hid out "heard a crash on a door and a young girl shout, 'Stop, wait!' Then came an explosion and rapid bursts of gunfire." To answer Tom's question, the explosion heard by the neighbor indicates that the SWAT team used a flash bang upon entering the parolee's hideout.
Here are some excerpts from the Los Angeles Times report:
MOURNFUL CALM FOLLOWS OAKLAND GUN BATTLE
By Maria L. La Ganga and Peter H. King
Los Angeles Times
March 23, 2009
OAKLAND, Calif. — It was early Saturday afternoon, and Curtis Mixon was talking with his 26-year-old nephew. Lovelle Shawn Mixon had called on a cellphone from his newly purchased 1995 Buick as he drove through east Oakland.
"Vel said the police was pulling him over," the 38-year-old medical records clerk recalled Sunday. "He said, 'I just pulled over.' "
The uncle listened as his nephew -- stopped on MacArthur Boulevard less than two blocks from a police station and around the corner from his sister's apartment -- spoke with a motorcycle officer and searched for his driver's license and registration.
Mixon told his uncle he would have to call him back.
He never did.
What followed was an almost inexplicable chain of events that left Mixon and four Oakland police officers dead and sent this city into an all-too-familiar ritual of municipal grief and self-examination.
According to authorities and witnesses, Mixon opened fire as two motorcycle officers stood behind his car, apparently checking his papers. He had been released from prison in November and was wanted for an alleged parole violation.
Sgt. Mark Dunakin, 40, died despite a citizen's efforts to revive him.
Officer John Hege, 41, was taken to Highland Hospital, where he was declared brain-dead Sunday.
While police swarmed the neighborhood, Mixon escaped around the corner to 74th Avenue in a residential neighborhood of bungalows, many with pit bulls fenced in the front yard. He shook on the locked back door of one house, startling the young girl inside, and then ducked into the ground floor of his sister Enjoli Mixon's apartment building.
Inside the apartment, another sister, 16-year-old Reynete Mixon, was unaware that her brother had returned. In an interview, she said she was in the bathroom when a SWAT team kicked down the door after a two-hour manhunt.
"I was yelling at them that I was in the house," Reynete said Sunday afternoon in front of her grandmother's modest Oakland home not far from where the shootings occurred. "They didn't really try to figure out who I was or if there was someone inside the house."
Across the hall, neighbor Mya Moore heard a crash on a door and a young girl shout, "Stop, wait!" Then came an explosion and rapid bursts of gunfire.
Peeking through her front window, the 27-year-old Oakland native saw one police officer, his head split open by gunfire, being dragged by officers through the building's main door to the sidewalk. Another was carried out to a police SUV and rushed away.
Ervin Romans, 43, and Daniel Sakai, 35, both sergeants and SWAT team members, did not survive, and as the gunfire subsided Moore could hear the agonized cries of officers as they absorbed the toll of a brief but furious gun battle: "I heard one of them saying, 'It's not looking good. It's not looking good.' "
Moore could hear other officers shouting commands to Mixon's sister. She said there had been "a lot" of shooting "on both sides, from him and from them." Oakland Police Department spokesman Jeff Thomason said Mixon was armed with an assault weapon in the apartment shootout. He would not say what kind of weapon was used in the earlier shooting.
__________
Mixon, according to authorities, had a long criminal history. In addition to a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, he had earlier convictions for marijuana possession, auto theft and a string of violations committed as a juvenile, Thomason said.
He had served nine months in prison for identity theft, forgery and grand theft before being released in November. According to state prison officials, Mixon missed a mandatory meeting with his agent last month and was deemed a "parolee at large." A warrant was issued for his arrest.
It is not unusual for parole officers to lose contact with their charges. At least 164, or 11%, of parolees assigned to Oakland's three parole divisions were considered at large last week, according to a report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
"When they do abscond, the department lacks the resources to track them down, and it's very hard to find people in a vast urban environment," said Ryken Grattet, a UC Davis professor who has written extensively about California's parole system.
___________
The violence Saturday was among the worst of its kind since 1970, when four California Highway Patrol officers were killed in a shootout in Newhall.
A resident across the hall from the apartment where the parolee hid out "heard a crash on a door and a young girl shout, 'Stop, wait!' Then came an explosion and rapid bursts of gunfire." To answer Tom's question, the explosion heard by the neighbor indicates that the SWAT team used a flash bang upon entering the parolee's hideout.
Here are some excerpts from the Los Angeles Times report:
MOURNFUL CALM FOLLOWS OAKLAND GUN BATTLE
By Maria L. La Ganga and Peter H. King
Los Angeles Times
March 23, 2009
OAKLAND, Calif. — It was early Saturday afternoon, and Curtis Mixon was talking with his 26-year-old nephew. Lovelle Shawn Mixon had called on a cellphone from his newly purchased 1995 Buick as he drove through east Oakland.
"Vel said the police was pulling him over," the 38-year-old medical records clerk recalled Sunday. "He said, 'I just pulled over.' "
The uncle listened as his nephew -- stopped on MacArthur Boulevard less than two blocks from a police station and around the corner from his sister's apartment -- spoke with a motorcycle officer and searched for his driver's license and registration.
Mixon told his uncle he would have to call him back.
He never did.
What followed was an almost inexplicable chain of events that left Mixon and four Oakland police officers dead and sent this city into an all-too-familiar ritual of municipal grief and self-examination.
According to authorities and witnesses, Mixon opened fire as two motorcycle officers stood behind his car, apparently checking his papers. He had been released from prison in November and was wanted for an alleged parole violation.
Sgt. Mark Dunakin, 40, died despite a citizen's efforts to revive him.
Officer John Hege, 41, was taken to Highland Hospital, where he was declared brain-dead Sunday.
While police swarmed the neighborhood, Mixon escaped around the corner to 74th Avenue in a residential neighborhood of bungalows, many with pit bulls fenced in the front yard. He shook on the locked back door of one house, startling the young girl inside, and then ducked into the ground floor of his sister Enjoli Mixon's apartment building.
Inside the apartment, another sister, 16-year-old Reynete Mixon, was unaware that her brother had returned. In an interview, she said she was in the bathroom when a SWAT team kicked down the door after a two-hour manhunt.
"I was yelling at them that I was in the house," Reynete said Sunday afternoon in front of her grandmother's modest Oakland home not far from where the shootings occurred. "They didn't really try to figure out who I was or if there was someone inside the house."
Across the hall, neighbor Mya Moore heard a crash on a door and a young girl shout, "Stop, wait!" Then came an explosion and rapid bursts of gunfire.
Peeking through her front window, the 27-year-old Oakland native saw one police officer, his head split open by gunfire, being dragged by officers through the building's main door to the sidewalk. Another was carried out to a police SUV and rushed away.
Ervin Romans, 43, and Daniel Sakai, 35, both sergeants and SWAT team members, did not survive, and as the gunfire subsided Moore could hear the agonized cries of officers as they absorbed the toll of a brief but furious gun battle: "I heard one of them saying, 'It's not looking good. It's not looking good.' "
Moore could hear other officers shouting commands to Mixon's sister. She said there had been "a lot" of shooting "on both sides, from him and from them." Oakland Police Department spokesman Jeff Thomason said Mixon was armed with an assault weapon in the apartment shootout. He would not say what kind of weapon was used in the earlier shooting.
__________
Mixon, according to authorities, had a long criminal history. In addition to a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, he had earlier convictions for marijuana possession, auto theft and a string of violations committed as a juvenile, Thomason said.
He had served nine months in prison for identity theft, forgery and grand theft before being released in November. According to state prison officials, Mixon missed a mandatory meeting with his agent last month and was deemed a "parolee at large." A warrant was issued for his arrest.
It is not unusual for parole officers to lose contact with their charges. At least 164, or 11%, of parolees assigned to Oakland's three parole divisions were considered at large last week, according to a report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
"When they do abscond, the department lacks the resources to track them down, and it's very hard to find people in a vast urban environment," said Ryken Grattet, a UC Davis professor who has written extensively about California's parole system.
___________
The violence Saturday was among the worst of its kind since 1970, when four California Highway Patrol officers were killed in a shootout in Newhall.
Monday, March 23, 2009
SHOULD GUN OWNERS BE WORRIED?
With the exception of some police officials, you will find few gun control advocates among conservatives. Among liberals, you will find few gun ownership advocates. If liberals had their way, only police officers would be armed in this country. Many liberals would go a step further by advocating that cops should go about their duties unarmed.
President Obama is not a centrist - he's a genuine liberal. The top people in his administration are, by and large, liberals. Both houses of Congress are controlled by liberals. All this worries America's gun owners. Are they justified in being worried? I think so. Is the Obama administration likely to go for a repeal of the Second Amendment to our Constitution? I don't think so. But they don't have to. All the liberals have to do is to pass restrictions on gun ownership, restrictions which, in technical terms, would not infringe on our Second Amendment rights.
The way in which the liberal Obama administration is dealing with medical marijuana may be a harbinger of coming restrictions on gun ownership. Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to stop raiding medical marijuana dispensaries that are complying with state laws in California and the 12 other states that have legalized the possession, use and sale of pot for medical purposes. Never mind that federal laws prohibit the possession and sale of marijuana. (See how those state laws are being abused in my blog "Can Veterinary Marijuana Be Far Behind?" [3-4-09].)
Holder is the guy who called whites "cowards" for not coming to grips with racism. With recent mass killings in this country and in Germany, you can bet one of the first things he will recommend is that the Obama administration reinstate the ban on assault-style weapons which the Bush administration allowed to expire. He will probably have the support of law enforcement for that ban because the parolee who gunned down four Oakland police officers last week had an assault rifle when he killed two SWAT officers.
Why is Holder's order barring DEA from raiding pot pharmacies relevant to gun controls? Because both are parts of the liberal pro-drug and anti-gun agendas. After reinstating the ban on assault rifles, I can see a number of other gun regulations on the horizon which will eventually limit the type of guns we can possess and their bullet capacity.
And I can also see us gun owners being required to register each of the guns we own.
The control of the White House and Congress by liberals explains why gun dealers are unable to keep guns in stock. A worried public is buying up guns as fast as they can be restocked on gun store shelves.
President Obama is not a centrist - he's a genuine liberal. The top people in his administration are, by and large, liberals. Both houses of Congress are controlled by liberals. All this worries America's gun owners. Are they justified in being worried? I think so. Is the Obama administration likely to go for a repeal of the Second Amendment to our Constitution? I don't think so. But they don't have to. All the liberals have to do is to pass restrictions on gun ownership, restrictions which, in technical terms, would not infringe on our Second Amendment rights.
The way in which the liberal Obama administration is dealing with medical marijuana may be a harbinger of coming restrictions on gun ownership. Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to stop raiding medical marijuana dispensaries that are complying with state laws in California and the 12 other states that have legalized the possession, use and sale of pot for medical purposes. Never mind that federal laws prohibit the possession and sale of marijuana. (See how those state laws are being abused in my blog "Can Veterinary Marijuana Be Far Behind?" [3-4-09].)
Holder is the guy who called whites "cowards" for not coming to grips with racism. With recent mass killings in this country and in Germany, you can bet one of the first things he will recommend is that the Obama administration reinstate the ban on assault-style weapons which the Bush administration allowed to expire. He will probably have the support of law enforcement for that ban because the parolee who gunned down four Oakland police officers last week had an assault rifle when he killed two SWAT officers.
Why is Holder's order barring DEA from raiding pot pharmacies relevant to gun controls? Because both are parts of the liberal pro-drug and anti-gun agendas. After reinstating the ban on assault rifles, I can see a number of other gun regulations on the horizon which will eventually limit the type of guns we can possess and their bullet capacity.
And I can also see us gun owners being required to register each of the guns we own.
The control of the White House and Congress by liberals explains why gun dealers are unable to keep guns in stock. A worried public is buying up guns as fast as they can be restocked on gun store shelves.
ACADEMIA AND GUNS ON CAMPUS
In today's Townhall.com, Mike Adams describes how Western Oregon University dealt with a student who legally carried a concealed weapon on campus. Here is Mike Adams' column:
JEFFREY MAXWELL'S SILVER HAMMER
by Mike S. Adams
I like teaching police officers because it virtually assures that no one will ever go on a shooting spree in my building at UNC-Wilmington. The officers I teach are, of course, allowed to carry guns – and many do as they go on duty directly after attending classes. Because criminals a) are aware of this, and b) are generally rational, the next shooting rampage will not be happening in my general vicinity.
The fact that most academics are generally ignorant of the benefits of guns on campus is readily apparent to those following a recent case at Western Oregon University located in Monmouth, Oregon. The case involves a former Marine named Jeffrey Maxwell who used to carry a derringer to school along with a small knife. He carried both concealed.
Maxwell carries his gun because, like many former Marines, he has a license to do so. His permit allows him to carry although not in federal buildings or in courthouses. He was studying in the student union when Monmouth Police officers approached him to ask whether he was armed.
Maxwell admitted he had a gun and knife in his pocket and an unloaded rifle in his truck. He was arrested and cited for possessing a firearm in public. Of course, he was let go by a district attorney who recognized that Maxwell simply had not committed any crime. But the fact of his complete innocence didn’t stop the university from going after Maxwell.
The university should have apologized to Maxwell. Instead, a student judicial panel suspended him from school for violating a student conduct rule banning the possession of weapons on campus.
The Oregon legislature could try to pass a law banning firearms possession - even for those with concealed carry permits - in places other than courthouses or federally owned buildings. If they tried to pass such a law they could well succeed.
But, in this case, Maxwell’s decision to carry was not challenged by any change in state law. It was challenged by yet another lawless university trying to trump state law with its own handbook. (For those who have not noticed, universities also try frequently to trump federal law with their handbooks. Often, they try to do both at once. It’s an old trick that often succeeds without challenge).
But the Maxwell case involves a more novel trick. It involves having this falsely accused man (who, remember, served his country in the Marines) get a mental health evaluation before returning to school. This may be worse than Hamline University’s decision to suspend a student simply for advocating concealed weapons permits on campus. That student was also ordered to submit to a psychological evaluation before returning to school.
To make matters in this case even worse, Maxwell is being told to write a 10-page paper on following the law and accepting responsibility for his actions. This requirement is coming from university that did not follow the law and, in fact, is trying to trump it. And the university seems unwilling to take responsibility for doing so.
Speaking for the Oregon university system, Di Saunders correctly asserts that the question of allowing concealed weapons on campus is one of student safety. But she incorrectly asserts that allowing permit holders to carry on campus will make the campus more dangerous. No peer-reviewed publication has ever come to that conclusion based on actual evidence. And many have come to a contrary conclusion.
But university administrators rarely make decisions based on evidence. Instead, they make decisions based upon feelings. How will they feel when the next Jeffrey Maxwell is unable to stop the next Seung-Hui Cho?
Editor's Note: In 2007, Cho killed 32 people and wounded 25 at Virginia Tech.
JEFFREY MAXWELL'S SILVER HAMMER
by Mike S. Adams
I like teaching police officers because it virtually assures that no one will ever go on a shooting spree in my building at UNC-Wilmington. The officers I teach are, of course, allowed to carry guns – and many do as they go on duty directly after attending classes. Because criminals a) are aware of this, and b) are generally rational, the next shooting rampage will not be happening in my general vicinity.
The fact that most academics are generally ignorant of the benefits of guns on campus is readily apparent to those following a recent case at Western Oregon University located in Monmouth, Oregon. The case involves a former Marine named Jeffrey Maxwell who used to carry a derringer to school along with a small knife. He carried both concealed.
Maxwell carries his gun because, like many former Marines, he has a license to do so. His permit allows him to carry although not in federal buildings or in courthouses. He was studying in the student union when Monmouth Police officers approached him to ask whether he was armed.
Maxwell admitted he had a gun and knife in his pocket and an unloaded rifle in his truck. He was arrested and cited for possessing a firearm in public. Of course, he was let go by a district attorney who recognized that Maxwell simply had not committed any crime. But the fact of his complete innocence didn’t stop the university from going after Maxwell.
The university should have apologized to Maxwell. Instead, a student judicial panel suspended him from school for violating a student conduct rule banning the possession of weapons on campus.
The Oregon legislature could try to pass a law banning firearms possession - even for those with concealed carry permits - in places other than courthouses or federally owned buildings. If they tried to pass such a law they could well succeed.
But, in this case, Maxwell’s decision to carry was not challenged by any change in state law. It was challenged by yet another lawless university trying to trump state law with its own handbook. (For those who have not noticed, universities also try frequently to trump federal law with their handbooks. Often, they try to do both at once. It’s an old trick that often succeeds without challenge).
But the Maxwell case involves a more novel trick. It involves having this falsely accused man (who, remember, served his country in the Marines) get a mental health evaluation before returning to school. This may be worse than Hamline University’s decision to suspend a student simply for advocating concealed weapons permits on campus. That student was also ordered to submit to a psychological evaluation before returning to school.
To make matters in this case even worse, Maxwell is being told to write a 10-page paper on following the law and accepting responsibility for his actions. This requirement is coming from university that did not follow the law and, in fact, is trying to trump it. And the university seems unwilling to take responsibility for doing so.
Speaking for the Oregon university system, Di Saunders correctly asserts that the question of allowing concealed weapons on campus is one of student safety. But she incorrectly asserts that allowing permit holders to carry on campus will make the campus more dangerous. No peer-reviewed publication has ever come to that conclusion based on actual evidence. And many have come to a contrary conclusion.
But university administrators rarely make decisions based on evidence. Instead, they make decisions based upon feelings. How will they feel when the next Jeffrey Maxwell is unable to stop the next Seung-Hui Cho?
Editor's Note: In 2007, Cho killed 32 people and wounded 25 at Virginia Tech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)