MISSOURI LT. GOV. BLASTS HOLDER AND OBAMA

Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder says there is more racism in the Justice Department than anywhere in the St. Louis area

Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, a Republican, had an angry retort to the Justice Department’s report on racism in Ferguson. On Monday, during an interview on NewsMax TV, Kinder said there is more racism in the Justice Department than anywhere in the St. Louis area. He accused Holder and Obama of “inciting” the mobs in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting.

Here are some of the comments Kinder made:

“There is more racism in the Justice Department than there is in anywhere I see in the St. Louis area. We are making progress. We’ve come an enormous way in 50 years. That’s not to say we don’t have still have more to do. But it is the left — it is the Eric Holder and Obama left — and their minions who are obsessed with race, while the rest of us are moving on beyond it.”

“The whole blowup of this protest movement was based on the lie that never happened of ‘hands up don’t shoot.’ It’s bad enough the protesters were behaving that way, but we have a right to expect much more from the attorney general, the head of the Justice Department of the United States, and the president of the United States. And instead, what we got too often from them was incitement of the mob, and, uh, encouraging disorder in Ferguson and disrupting the peaceable going-about of our daily lives in the greater St. Louis region. Many of them have spent most of their careers defending Black Panthers and other violent radicals.”

I can understand that as a Republican, Kinder could be expected to react publicly to the Justice Department’s report and Holder’s threat to “dismantle” the Ferguson police department. However, in his obvious anger, I think he may have gone a tad over the top.

President Obama was supposed to be the great unifier. Instead, thanks to Obama and Holder, this country is now divided the most it’s been since the Lyndon B. Johnson administration.

CALIFORNIA PRISONS: THE DOG AND BEARDY SHOW

Prison System to get Friendly, Passive Security Dogs: Who is keeping an eye on this?

By Richard Krupp, PhD.

PACOVILLA Corrections blog
March 17, 2015

Every once in a while the Secretary of Corrections does something that seems so strange that it makes me laugh. Though I have never met Jeff Beard, I did watch a clip of his recent Oversight Committee testimony regarding prison dogs. I have testified before this committee under prior legislators.

Beard was explaining why the dogs trained by his friends in Pennsylvania are better than the California dogs the Department has been working with for a number of years. These dogs are utilized to find inmate drugs and cell phones smuggled into our prisons. One of the dogs found 1,000 cell Beard was explaining why the dogs trained by his friends in Pennsylvania are better than the California phones.

A story on the Sacramento ABC news station KXTV tells the story:

Veteran prison dog handler resigns over new drug search program

An expert dog handler and trainer who spent decades with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation says he was threatened by a superior when he tried to point out what he believes are flaws in a new program aimed at reducing prison drug smuggling.

Wayne Conrad, 61, resigned in September as the CDCR began ramping up a plan to begin using dogs to search prison staff and visitors. The team eventually grew to 32 dogs.

“And the beauty is that it was done with no funding,” Conrad said. “All the dogs we received, they were either Belgian malinois, German shepherds or Dutch shepherds. They were all donated or found in rescues. These dogs didn’t cost the department anything.”

CDCR Secretary Jeffrey Beard, who took over in December 2012, chose to emulate the canine program in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections where he served as secretary for 10 years. Beard explained at a State Capitol hearing last week why the department under his leadership was getting away from traditional police dog breeds for staff and visitor searches.

“We have moved to what we call the passive alert dogs,” Beard told a Senate subcommittee. “I remember when we rolled them out in the mid-2000s in Pennsylvania. I expected we’d get a lot of complaints and we got no complaints … they’re friendly dogs, and that’s what we’re trying to do here as well.”

Conrad said the three handlers questioned the value of the training when they returned to California and that he and the handlers were threatened by an associate warden at CDCR headquarters when they expressed their concerns.

“He repeated it twice,” Conrad said. “He looked at each one of us, pointing his finger at each one of us, and said that if he finds out that we spoke negatively of the Pennsylvania trip, I will f-ing end you.” (for the full story please read http://tinyurl.com/mqomot3.)

Come on Beard…friendlier dogs? How friendly and passive should a dog be? I thought they are supposed to help persuade people to stop bringing drugs and phones into the prisons.

Maybe Chihuahuas would be less intimidating. They probably eat less and you can put several of them in a small box. You could dress them up in tiny little dog clothes too.

Beard did say he wanted dogs that children would like…ones that aren’t “scary.” Are the dogs there to play with children?

This Beardy decision is questionable on four levels:

Beard is replacing a reliable cost-effective tool—canines that perform well and do a good job helping the Department control the influx of contraband, drugs, and cell phones smuggled into prisons—with politically correct dogs that are “kid-friendly;”

Beard is increasing the price tag of contraband detection—replacing a low/no cost program with a more costly one;

Beard is funneling California tax payers dollars to his “friends” who train the dogs in Pennsylvania;

Beard, through the command staff, issue threats and promise retaliation to anyone questioning the new program.

Since the department has stated that 23% of the inmates randomly drug tested have positive findings and about 30% refused to be tested, there is a big drug problem within the institutions. Beard says drugs in smuggled into prison, “drive violence and stand in the way of rehabilitation.”

As I recall the number of cell phones found with inmates is substantial also. Why on earth would someone make the controls more friendly and passive? Has Beard been waiting for the right moment to bring the Pennsylvania dogs to California? Maybe he missed them.

My hat goes off to Mr. Conrad who sees this scam for what it is. Thanks for speaking up. Will the Oversight Committee do anything? I wonder.

Is someone at the Oversight Committee keeping both eyes on the Department of Corrections? Or maybe only one eye?

In any event, keep an eye on the Beardy.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Looks like Beard wants to replace police dogs with sissy dogs. I think the EPA would object to the Chihuahuas on grounds that their constant yapping would exceed the maximum noise level allowed.

And Bob Walsh says, "I have also found Chihuahuas (rat dogs) to be very aggressive as a breed. Not very dangerous perhaps, but very aggressive. Perhaps we should just switch over to plush toy dogs. They would not be very effective, but if the bottom line is to be non-threatening, they would certainly meet that qualification. Plus you don’t have to feed them."

HOW CAN YOU GET OUT OF THIS DANGEROUS SITUATION?

The Unconventional Gazette
March 17, 2015

You are on a Horse, galloping at a constant speed.

On your right side is a sharp drop off.

And on your left side is an Elephant traveling at the same speed as you.

Directly in front of you is a galloping Kangaroo and your horse is
unable to overtake it.

Behind you is a Lion running at the same speed as you and the Kangaroo.

What must you do to safely get out of this highly dangerous situation?



Scroll down for answer:















Get your drunken ass off the merry-go-round!

MOST DANGEROUS PSYCHOPATH THE JUDGE EVER ENCOUNTERED

Sentenced to 104 years in prison, Cameron Hooker, now in California’s Corcoran state prison, is getting a parole hearing after only 30 years

Cameron Hooker is doing time at Corcoran, the same California state prison where Charlie Manson has been roosting. Bob Walsh calls Hooker a ‘seriously warped individual.’

Here is a very good editorial from the Chico Enterprise-Record:

EDITORIAL: CAMERON HOOKER’S PAROLE HEARING SHOULD BE EXTREMELY BRIEF

Chico Enterprise-Record
March 14, 2015

If the justice system works, the parole hearing next month for notorious Red Bluff kidnapper, rapist and suspected murderer Cameron Hooker should be the shortest on record. It should last as long as it takes to say the words, “No way on earth. Never.”

Just the fact that Hooker is getting a parole hearing is appalling enough to many people in these parts. Hooker is the sadist who kept a young woman he abducted under his bed in a box, with his wife’s knowledge, in their Red Bluff home. The family had two children living at home.

The victim was a sex slave for more than seven years. Janice Hooker eventually helped the woman escape and escaped punishment herself by testifying against her husband.

Janice Hooker said her husband also tortured and killed Marie Elizabeth Spannhake after abducting her in Chico in January 1976. Spannhake’s body was never found so there was no prosecution, but it didn’t matter because Cameron Hooker was sentenced to 104 years in state prison in 1985 for the trial that became known nationwide as the “girl in the box” case.

The frightening trial was the stuff of nightmares. It was horror-movie material before horror movies ever got that weird. Hooker, a 31-year-old lumber mill worker when he was arrested, was painted at trial as a deranged man fascinated with bondage, torture and the occult.

When he was sentenced in Redwood City (the trial was moved from Red Bluff at the request of the defense), Superior Court Judge Clarence Knight called Hooker “the most dangerous psychopath I have ever encountered.”

Only in California can you be sentenced to 104 years in state prison and get a parole hearing and possible release 30 years later.

The hearing, though, is required by law. Hooker is serving in Corcoran. Tehama County District Attorney Gregg Cohen said he plans to attend the hearing and feels “very confident” that Hooker will not be released.

“I equate him along the lines of Charles Manson as far as his evilness,” Cohen said.

Anyone who remembers the case feels the same.

Hooker wasn’t supposed to have an initial parole hearing until 2022, but California has since allowed earlier parole hearings for the elderly and the sick who are no harm to society. Hooker is 61, which isn’t elderly, and with his twisted mind, he’ll always qualify as a threat to society.

There should never be parole for Cameron Hooker. He deserves to stay in his box forever.

BLACK HOLE

ANALYSIS: IN FRACTURED ISRAEL, ALL ELCTORAL BETS ARE OFF

By Dan Perry

Associated Press
March 14, 2015

JERUSALEM -- Deeply divided and foul of mood, Israelis are headed toward what seems like a referendum on their long-serving, silver-tongued prime minister, the hard-line Benjamin Netanyahu.

But with so many of them having despaired of peace talks with the Palestinians, the focus is mostly on Netanyahu's personality, his expense scandals and the soaring cost of living.

And as no candidate is likely to win big in the wild jumble of Israel's political landscape, the outcome of the March 17 election could well be a joint government between Netanyahu and his moderate challenger Isaac Herzog. It's an irony, because the animosities are overwhelming.

Much has changed in the world since Netanyahu first became prime minister in 1996, but Israel remains stuck with the question of what to do with the highly strategic, biblically resonant, Palestinian-populated lands it captured almost a half-century ago.

Israelis know it is their existential issue, but it seems almost too complex for a democracy. After decades of failed peace talks under every sort of government, the whole festering thing has become such a vexation that politicians seem to fear it, and voters look away.

When he called the early election in November, Netanyahu seemed a shoo-in, but somewhere things went wrong. Notorious around the world for American-accented eloquence in the service of a tough stance, he is extraordinarily divisive at home, where he has been prime minister for the past six years, and for nine in total.

His speech last week before the U.S. Congress, urging a tighter deal than he believes is brewing on Iran's nuclear program, was typical: He impressed some Israelis, while infuriating others who sensed a political ploy.

Polls show his nationalist Likud Party running slightly behind Herzog's Labor Party, rebranded the Zionist Union in a bid for nationalist votes. There are scenarios in which Herzog — improbably mild-mannered in a high-decibel land — becomes prime minister. And that would change the music: Herzog is a conciliator genuinely interested in ending the occupation of lands captured in the 1967 war.

Some things to watch for:

ISRAEL IS NEARLY UNGOVERNABLE

Despite its reputation for plucky unity, the country is badly fragmented — and that's reflected in parliament under the proportional representation system.

Combined, the two big parties get far less than half the vote. Then one finds a nationalist party appealing to Russian speakers, another for secular liberals and two for the squeezed middle class. A united list represents the one-fifth of citizens who are Arabs and is itself divided between communist, nationalist and Islamist factions. There are four religious parties, for Jews of European versus Middle Eastern descent and for varying degrees of nationalism.

The schisms are real, reflecting a society so diverse that at times it seems to be flying apart. The discourse is of one's rival destroying the country, through stupidity or evil. A TV debate between the main candidates other than Netanyahu and Herzog quickly degenerated into shouted accusations of fascism, criminality and treason.

A KINGMAKER COMES

By dint of necessity, this constellation has nonetheless coalesced over the years into rival leftist and rightist blocs: the Arab parties aligned with the dovish left, and the religious with the nationalistic right. If either wins 61 seats combined, its main party governs.

But for the first time in decades, there is a new party that seems genuinely non-aligned: Kulanu, led by Moshe Kahlon, a working-class Likud breakaway of Libyan Jewish descent who became popular for reducing mobile phone costs in previous governments. He says he will go with whichever side makes him finance minister — as both almost certainly would — and seeks to reduce the cost of living. He appears to care little about the Palestinian issue.

Every recent poll shows him holding the balance of power, with about 10 seats while the blocs split the rest.

THE RELUCTANT RIGHT

The winning bloc often rules in alliance with parts of the other bloc. Such coalitions widen the base and win points for moderation and inclusiveness. They are also paralyzed by disagreement and tend to collapse of their internal contradictions, as Netanyahu's did four months ago.

Likud seems especially reluctant to rule on its own, almost always preferring a grand coalition with Labor or centrist parties rather than one with just its nationalist and religious allies. At least in part, that looks like an admission that truly nationalist policies — such as annexations in the West Bank — would so offend the world and provoke the Palestinians as to bring ruin.

The right sees the West Bank as the heartland of biblical Israel and also a place of immense strategic value, since Israel without it is reduced at its narrowest point to about 10 miles (15 kilometers) wide. The left's key argument is that permanent control of millions more Arabs would destroy Israel as a Jewish-majority state.

The right has developed a majority among Israel's Jews. But it is also hugely unpopular among the nation's still-powerful elites, including academic figures, business leaders and — to a striking degree — the security establishment. The 2012 documentary "The Gatekeepers," presenting a highly critical view of the West Bank occupation, featured every one of the six then-living heads of the Shin Bet secret service, entrusted with securing that very occupation. The keynote speech against Netanyahu at the main opposition rally last week was by Meir Dagan, who led the Mossad intelligence agency for much of Netanyahu's term. A predecessor, Shabtai Shavit, has been similarly critical, as have recent heads of the military.

So great is the pressure on the right that successive Likud leaders have abruptly changed course or even crossed the line, including then-prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. Some predicted the same for Netanyahu, who in 2009 accepted the principle of Palestinian statehood, appearing to renounce all he had once stood for; but actions did not follow, and the theory that he was just pretending so as to confuse his critics gains currency by the day.

IMPOSSIBLE PEACE?

Even among proponents of a West Bank pullout, the talk is of saving Israel demographically as a Jewish-majority state rather than of making peace. Many yearn for unilateral moves, having given up on the possibility of a negotiated deal after all these years.

Israel might conceivably agree to the near-total West Bank pullout the Palestinians seek; previous governments have. The Palestinians may agree to drop the demand that refugees' descendants be allowed to move to Israel, potentially by the millions. But the real conundrum is Jerusalem, where a division of the intertwined holy city along ethnic lines would lead to perhaps the world's most complicated map, a tinderbox extraordinaire.

Providing the worst of precedents is Gaza, the other part of the would-be Palestinian state, on Israel's southern flank. Israel pulled out its soldiers and settlers in 2005 and handed control to the Palestinian autonomy government of moderate President Mahmoud Abbas — a relic of interim agreements from the pre-Netanyahu 1990s. But Hamas militants swiftly seized the strip and have been blockaded by Israel; they regularly fire rockets at Israeli towns, and three wars have been fought.

Then there are security threats to Israel from elsewhere in the region: Iran, believed to be seeking an atomic bomb; its proxy Hezbollah, with a forest of missiles pointed at Israel from Lebanon; Islamic State jihadis rampaging in nearby countries; al-Qaida radicals on the border with a disintegrating, still-hostile Syria.
Given the widespread pessimism, Herzog subtly dodges the peace issue, perhaps for fear of appearing naive.

UNITY GOVERNMENT POSSIBLE

With the electorate confused and fractured and no clear path forward on the key issues, and with neither Netanyahu nor Herzog likely to win a convincing majority, a plausible outcome has their parties banding together. They may also agree to rotate as prime minister in such an arrangement, with the first turn going to whoever has the stronger parliamentary hand.

Such has already happened in 1984. Labor's Shimon Peres and Likud's Yitzhak Shamir lived in uneasy coexistence and switched jobs halfway through. A few things got done. But the main issue, then as now, was the West Bank; Peres negotiated over it with Jordan, only to see his peace plans scuttled by the skeptical Shamir. Shortly thereafter the first Palestinian uprising began.

Many fear another one is coming, even as Israelis focus on the price of cottage cheese.

CHIHUAHUA ASSAILANT MUST REGISTER AS SEX OFFENDER

Sicko scumbag’s dick not a fit for tiny dog’s vag

By Bob Walsh

PACOVILLA Corrections blog
March 14, 2015

Acting Friday a State Appeals Court upheld the sentence of a dog molester.

The court ruled that Robert Deshields, 58, had indeed “committed a violent offense…for sexual purposes” and as such was appropriately sentenced as a sex offender.

Dashields had been living in the garage of the family of the owner of Shadow, a male Chihuahua. The dog went missing on March 27. He reappeared the next day, Dashields asserted he found the dog hiding behind a recliner in the garage. The dog was clearly in bad shape, could barely move, and was dragging his hind legs. Three separate vets testified that the dog had been strangled. Dasheilds was convicted of animal cruelty but deadlocked on the sexual assault on the dog.

Dashields was sentenced to the upper term of three years, plus one year for each of seven enhancements. The court ruled that the strangulation was done for sexual gratification and added the sex offender registration enhancement.

THEY WANT COPS DEAD

Ambush-style attacks were the leading circumstance in the surging number of shooting deaths of cops

Jeff Roorda, a prominent St. Louis Police Officers Association official and former Democratic state representative, says “Dead cops ... that's what they want,” after two cops were shot early Thursday in front of the Ferguson police headquarters. And Craig W. Floyd, head of the Police Memorial Fund, blames the angry rhetoric heard since the shooting death of Michael Brown for the ambush slayings of cops.

POLICE ADVOCATES: WE’RE WORRIED AOUT RECENT SPATE OF AMBUSHES
By Ray Sanchez, Ashley Fantz and Shasta Darlington

CNN
March 13, 2015

Two police officers shot and wounded while standing guard outside the Ferguson, Missouri, Police Department early Thursday were deliberately targeted in what a police official called an "ambush."

Such ambush-style attacks were the leading circumstance in the surging number of shooting deaths of law enforcement officers, according to the nonprofit, Washington-based National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

The shootings were a chilling low point in the protests in the St. Louis suburb since a Ferguson police officer shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown in August.

The demonstrators were out again late Wednesday -- in response to the announcement hours earlier of Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson's resignation -- when shots rang out from a hill about 125 yards from where the protesters had gathered, according to witnesses.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the shootings were an "ambush" intended "for whatever nefarious reason" to inflict harm on the officers. The officers -- one shot in the face, the other in the shoulder -- have been released from the hospital.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder decried the shootings as a "heinous assault (that) was inexcusable and repugnant."

Calling the shooting a "cowardly action," Holder said, "I condemn violence against any public safety officials in the strongest terms, and the Department of Justice will never accept any threats or violence directed at those who serve and protect our communities."

'Very real dangers' officers face

The number of law enforcement officers shot to death in the line of duty rose more than 50% in 2014, the law enforcement group said in a report released in December.

Many of those shootings occurred during police interactions with suspects such as traffic stops, responses to disturbances or attempted arrests. Such was the case in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on Tuesday, when Deputy U.S. Marshal Josie Wells was killed in an exchange of gunfire after going to arrest a fugitive murder suspect at a motel.

However, ambushes were the largest single category of circumstances in the shooting deaths of officers in 2014, according to the group's report.

Fifty officers were killed by firearms -- 15 in ambush attacks -- in 2014, the Memorial Fund said.

That's compared with five ambushes among 32 shooting deaths in 2013 and six ambush deaths during 2012, according to the FBI.

But those ambush numbers have trended higher before in previous years: The FBI counted 15 officer deaths by ambush each year in 2011, 2010 and 2009.

Ambush situations were the biggest category of circumstance behind 543 officers feloniously killed from 2002 to 2011: 23.2%.

Ambush killings are nothing new. The FBI defines two types:

One is by "entrapment and premeditation," which is a scenario "where the officer was lured into danger as the result of conscious consideration and planning. These attacks are generally accomplished from cover or hiding; however, they can occur without cover or hiding," the agency said.

The second are ambushes of "unprovoked attacks," which are "generally accomplished without hiding; however, they can occur with or without cover," the FBI said.

Harry Houck, a consultant and former New York Police Department detective, said officers could be second-guessing themselves as scrutiny of the police increases.

"If an officer is afraid to immediately react the way he's supposed to," he said, "that could cost him his life."

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund 2014 report, 126 federal, state, local, tribal and territorial officers died in the line of duty in 2014, compared with 102 and 123 the previous two years. Most of the on-duty deaths considered "non-felonious" were from traffic accidents or health reasons.

CNN has not analyzed each case and cannot authenticate the group's findings.

After the findings were released in December, Holder said: "These troubling statistics underscore the very real dangers that America's brave law enforcement officers face every time they put on their uniforms. Each loss is both tragic and unacceptable -- a beloved father, mother, son or daughter who never came home to their loved ones."

He said that the Department of Justice is doing its own analysis of officer deaths in 2014 "so we can mitigate risks in the future."

Memorial fund leader blames 'rhetoric'

The report's release came amid simmering distrust and tension between police and some communities across the country. It was published less than two weeks after the December 20 ambush killing of two New York City police officers.

Ismaaiyl Brinsley, 28, approached Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos as they sat in their marked patrol car in Brooklyn on December 20 and shot them to death. He killed himself shortly afterward.

The police memorial fund invoked the memories of Liu and Ramos' deaths in a December statement.

"With the increasing number of ambush-style attacks against our officers, I am deeply concerned that a growing anti-government sentiment in America is influencing weak-minded individuals to launch violent assaults against the men and women working to enforce our laws and keep our nation safe," said Craig W. Floyd, chairman and CEO of the police fund.

"Enough is enough," he said. "We need to tone down the rhetoric and rally in support of law enforcement and against lawlessness."

That angry rhetoric isn't confined to the case of Ferguson -- or of Staten Island, New York, where the death of Eric Garner in July after police attempted to subdue him spurred national protests and preceded the slayings of Liu and Ramos, said Steve Groeninger, a spokesman for the memorial fund.

Groeninger said the uptick in ambush-style attacks was "punctuated" by the New York officers' slayings, but there were other targeted attacks against law enforcement in 2014 that concern the fund.

They included:

• In Las Vegas in June, Jerad Miller and his wife surprised two police officers as they ate lunch, shooting them to death. Witnesses said the Millers placed a "Don't Tread on Me" flag and a swastika on one officer's body. The couple then died in a murder-suicide as police closed in.

• In Jersey City, New Jersey, in July, police said a man assaulted a Walgreen's security guard and took his gun in order to carry out the ambush-style killing of an officer, according to the Jersey Journal.

• Two Pennsylvania State Police troopers were ambushed and shot outside police barracks in Blooming Grove in September. The hunt for the alleged killer, Eric Frein, lasted almost seven weeks. He was captured at an abandoned airport on October 30. Frein was hit with terrorism charges in November for allegedly admitting that he shot the officers to change the government and "wake people up."

More shootings by police

But the number of shootings by police officers also is on the rise.

According to data collected by the FBI, there were 461 justifiable homicides in 2013 -- the highest level since 1994 and the most recent year available. The figures are incomplete, however, because the shootings are self-reported and not all police departments provide them.

The total number of fatal shootings by police officers is much higher -- 1,010 in 2013 and 1,134 last year, according to the nonprofit Fatal Encounters. The group started collecting the data in 2013. Its source of information is different from the FBI's.

The group's founder, Brian Burghart, said the figures create a toxic environment for police, as well as suspects.

"When it comes to an eye for an eye, that people are addressing the problems with violence, the numbers are always going to go up on both sides," he said.

This week, Wisconsin residents took to the streets to protest the police killing of Tony Robinson, a 19-year-old who was unarmed.

Robinson's shooting was the fourth involving an officer in Wisconsin in the last three weeks. The others hardly made headlines: One involved an armed robbery, another a domestic abuser who put a knife to his girlfriend's throat, and another involved an assailant with a fake gun.

Last April, Milwaukee police officer Christopher Manney shot Dontre Hamilton, a mentally ill man, more than a dozen times. The officer said he opened fire when Hamilton grabbed his baton and struck him with it. Manney was not charged criminally. Instead, he was fired for not following protocol.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke accused politicians of fueling what he called an "assault" on policing.

"War has been declared on the American police officer," Clarke told CNN on Friday. "And I'm tired of politicians taking all of the maladies of the American ghetto and blaming them on the American police officer. ... They jumped in, early on, instead of offering calm words, they threw gas on an already smoldering fire."

Experts say the numbers alone don't tell the whole story.

"We need to know the circumstances in each individual case," said Houck, the consultant and former New York Police Department detective.

‘COMMUNITY' CELEBRATES RESIGNATION OF FERGUSON CHIEF

Two cops were shot in front of the Ferguson police headquarters by demonstrators following Wednesday's resignation of Chief Tom Jackson

It seems as though the 'community' is not satisfied with Wednesday's resignation of Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson. A pack of demonstrators gathered in front of Ferguson's police headquarters Wednesday evening following the announcement of his resignation. Sometime after midnight, two police officers who were assigned to control the crowd were shot, one in the face, the other in the shoulder.

Here is a brief CBS News account of the shooting:

Two officers were shot outside the Ferguson, Missouri police headquarters early Thursday, CBS St. Louis affiliate KMOV-TV reports.

The station says St. Louis County police tell it two of their officers were the ones hit. One was shot in the face and the other in a leg, KMOV adds, but there was no immediate word on their condition. [Later reports say one officer was shot in the shoulder instead of the leg.]

The shots were fired as police were confronting protesters outside the police station, the station says.

Demonstrators had gathered in the wake of the resignation of the city's police chief Wednesday.

Here is an updated Associated Press report:

A 32-year-old officer from nearby Webster Groves was shot in the face and a 41-year-old officer from St. Louis County was shot in the shoulder, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said at a news conference. Both were taken to a hospital, where Belmar said they were conscious. He said he did not have further details about their conditions but described their injuries as "serious."

Apparently that mob was celebrating Jackson's resignation, but some 'demonstrators' must have been angry that the whole police department did not get axed. So someone decided to exercise his constitutional right to demonstrate by shooting a couple of cops. And the two officers shot were not Ferguson cops.

No wonder cops are biased against African-Americans. And this also explains why police officers have a nervous trigger finger when confronting young black men. Police Lives Matter too!

YES, COPS ARE BIGOTED

Frequent encounters with obnoxious blacks are behind the bigotry of cops, even with cops who joined the force to fight racism

On the 50th anniversary of Selma, President Obama and Attorney General Holder, in reaction to the Justice Department’s report on a racist Ferguson, Missouri police department, said they don’t think the racism found in Ferguson is typical of police agencies across the country, but they also said that there are places where trust between police and minorities is nonexistent.

There is no question about racism being widespread throughout the mostly white Ferguson Police Department. The Justice Department uncovered scores of racist emails sent by dumbass Ferguson cops. Some of those emails were laced with invectives about the President and Michelle Obama. The Ferguson city council also pressured the cops to increase the city coffers by issuing as many traffic citations as possible, knowing full-well that those citations would be given mostly to Ferguson’s poor blacks. The Attorney General said that if necessary, he will “dismantle” the Ferguson police department.

If we’re honest about it, most street cops are bigoted. But cops are far from being the only bigots. The media has been having a feast with racism at the University Of Oklahoma where some dumbass members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, one of the country’s largest fraternities, were caught engaging in some utterly vile racism.

A video was posted Sunday on the internet by Unheard, a black student group at OU. The video showed a number of the frat brothers singing and laughing while using the ’N’ word and threatening to lynch any nigger who tries to join the fraternity. To me it looked like they were drunk, but drunk or sober, there is absolutely no excuse for any behavior like that.

Now, while the cops and fraternities are being excoriated, let’s not ignore the fact that many, if not most, blacks are also bigots, hating Mexican and other Central Americans as well as Asians in this country for competing with them for jobs. Many blacks hate Koreans, Vietnamese and Jews who have established businesses in black neighborhoods. Blacks have displayed considerable hatred of Jews even though Jews marched with them at Selma and were otherwise prominent in the civil rights movement. And, of course there is the dislike and hatred of the police.

Nowadays many college graduates are becoming cops. Some of these recruits joined up to fight the racism they believed to be prevalent among the police. Oh yeah! It doesn’t take long for these idealistic young men to become biased themselves. All it takes is a few, of which there are many, contacts with obnoxious African-Americans.

Let me tell you about an experience I had with a black man shortly after I joined the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. I can’t remember why I stopped him, but he immediately let loose with a tirade that went something like this: “Motherfucker, the only fucking reason you’re messing with me is because I’m black, you motherfucking pig.” It was all I could do to refrain from strumming his fucking head with my baton.

Similar African-American obnoxious encounters with the police continue to occur and will make even an idealistic young cop biased against blacks. And black officers are also the recipients of black rage against cops. You do not have to be in a police station long before you will hear some of the black cops referring to those obnoxious African-Americans as “niggers.”

Like every other country, America is a land of bigots, perhaps even more so because we have so many different racial, religious and ethnic groups among us. Even though police officers are held to a higher standard, we cannot expect them to be any different. In addition to being bigoted against blacks, many cops are also biased against other minorities, the same as their fellow Americans. That bigotry knows no bounds. In San Antonio, Texas many Anglos complain about being mistreated by Mexican-American cops. And so it goes.

Street cops usually deal with the dregs o society. Even contacts with good people can be unpleasant. Burglary victims get angry with cops when their property is not recovered. If they are mugging or carjack victims they get angry if the crooks are not apprehended. The same with the families of rape and murder victims. That’s why, after WWII when I became a Galveston cop, I frequently heard my fellow officers say, “People are no fucking good!”

It was the same with my fellow Riverside Sheriff’s deputies. And I’ve heard many of the cops in my criminal justice classes tell the younger students that “People are no fucking good!” That’s why cops isolate themselves from the rest of society. They don’t consider the fact that most people are good, even those that are angry with them for failing to catch the crooks who victimized them. All their friends are other cops and they spend much of their off-duty time drinking together. That leads to divorces and alcoholism. And that’s why cops, who don’t like people in the first place, become bigoted, especially against those minorities with whom they have so many obnoxious encounters.

During the past several months, the deaths of several unarmed black men at the hands of white cops have increased the animosity between the police and the black community. When the President and the Attorney General praised angry demonstrators, Obama and Holder may very well have pleased their black constituency, but thereby they have angered the police and poured more fuel on the bigotry among cops that the two profess to end.

Obama and Holder seem to believe that by getting the police and blacks to hold some kumbaya love fests in their respective cities, all that mistrust and bigotry on both sides will evaporate. They must be smoking some funny tobacco because that ain’t gonna happen in their lifetimes and the lifetimes of their children.

NEWS EXCLUSIVE TO THE UNCONVENTIONAL GAZETTE

Bruce Jenner Gender Transition Fires Worldwide Comments On The Disposition Of His Balls

The Unconventional Gazette
March 10, 2015

WASHINGTON, DC -- Over the past year a rash of news stories surfaced speculating whether gold-medal winning Olympic decathlete Bruce Jenner was undergoing a gender transition from male to female. Though Jenner has yet to publicly confirm the story, members of his extended family, including the Kardashian clan, have recently approached various news outlets confirming Jenner's intention.

Now it appears a number of world leaders have picked up on the story and are wondering aloud "What will happen to Jenner's balls if he completes the transition?" Sources this week quoted Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu as suggesting it would be a monumental step if Jenner were to donate his balls to U.S. President Barack Obama. Netanyahu stated "Everyone knows Obama has no balls and it would be damn nice if he suddenly had Olympic sized balls. It would be a huge step forward for world peace.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel remarked, "I don't even have any balls, but everyone tells me I have a bigger set than Obama. I think it would be a great idea.”

On the other hand, Russian President Vladimir Putin joined Syrian President Bashar Assad in proclaiming that Obama's lack of balls has finally enabled a number of regimes worldwide a fair chance to consolidate their power. Putin, on a shirtless fly fishing expedition in Kanchatka, said "The days of U.S. Presidents with big balls like Reagan are over. Now it's our turn.“

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani remarked earlier in the week that "It's been great the last six years. It's like playing soccer against the U.S. with no goalie in their net.”

While world leaders debate the issue, closer to home New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick and Super Bowl MVP quarterback Tom Brady stepped forward to say they would each donate one ball to the President if Jenner does not come through. Belichick, however, cautioned that "The President would have to understand, our balls would be underinflated, but still probably an improvement over what he seems to be working with now."

THAT DAMN SPELL CHECK

The Unconventional Gazette
March 10, 2015

Bob received the following email from his neighbor:

I am so sorry Bob. I've been riddled with guilt and have to confess that I have been helping myself to your wife, day and night when you're not around. In fact, more than you. I do not get it at home, but that's no excuse. I can no longer live with the guilt and I hope you will accept my sincerest apology with my promise that it won't, ever happen again.

Bob in complete shock, ran next door and shot his neighbor dead.

Bob returned home and found that a second email from his now dead neighbor had come in while he ran out of his house gun in hand. That email read:

Damn spell check! I meant "wi-fi"!

WITCH HUNTS IN TANZANIA ARE ON THE RISE AS VIGILANTES SEEK JUSTICE FOR MURDERS OF ALBINOS

The killers believe that body parts of persons with albinism brings good fortune and wealth

By Tonny Onyulo

Religion News Service / USA
March 2, 2015

TABORA, Tanzania -- Many women are living in fear in this rural part of northwestern Tanzania because they are increasingly being targeted by witch hunts — literally.

This East African country is grappling with an upswing in vigilante justice as villagers attack women they believe are witches responsible for the murders of albinos, whose white skin some believe possess magical powers.

Last month, some 200 angry villagers — mostly youths carrying axes, machetes and knives — grabbed Jane Faidha Bakari, 58, in Tabora, hacked her with sharp weapons and burned her alive while her helpless husband watched.

“They came around midnight banging on the door,” said Moses Bakari, her husband. “They broke into the house and hacked my wife with machetes and knives. They burned the body of my wife and later set fire on my house. They claimed that my wife was practicing witchcraft and killing albinos.”

The villagers believed the woman was using body parts from albinos — people born with the absence of pigment in their skin, eyes and hair — to practice witchcraft. Bakari fled with his three children and took refuge in a neighbor’s house.

“I neither knew nor heard that my wife was practicing witchcraft,” Bakari said. “I still don’t believe that I lost my wife to such a painful death. I will only heal if justice is done, because she was innocent.”

The murder of Bakari’s wife isn’t uncommon. Frightened neighbors-cum-vigilantes lynched, stoned or hacked more than 1,000 women to death last year, according to the Center for Advocacy in Rural Development, a Kenyan development group, and the Dar es Salaam-based Legal and Human Rights Center. The groups estimate more than 3,000 suspected witches, usually late middle-age and older women, were killed in the past six years alone.

“The government has failed to apprehend witch doctors who kill our innocent people,” said Wilson Asida, a Tabora resident. “They have killed many albinos to help them gain magical powers. We’ll kill them ourselves to get justice.”

Asida accused the government — which banned witchcraft in January — of relying too much on the courts to prove whether women were practicing witches. “They pretend as if they don’t know witchcraft exists,” he said.

Attacks against those with albinism also seem to be on the rise, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said in a statement last week, citing at least three incidents in the past two months. The statement was in response to the “horrific murder and mutilation” of a 1-year-old baby with albinism earlier this month.

The agency worries the killings will only rise in the run-up to October’s Tanzanian presidential elections as political campaigners seek the help of seers who use albino body parts to foretell the future.

In the past 15 years, at least 75 albinos have been killed in Tanzania, but prosecutors have convicted just 10 people in those murders, according to the U.N. Albino organs fetch hundreds of dollars in illegal trading. Around 33,000 people out of a population of about 50 million have albinism, according to the Tanzanian Albinism Society.

Older women are suffering from the backlash against witches as a result of the albino deaths, said Erick Wandera Omwami, chief executive of the Center for Advocacy in Rural Development, who is pushing the government to expand its education campaign against killing albinos to include admonitions against harming alleged witches.

“It’s unlucky for older persons to live in this region, but we should know that every older person has a right to life like anyone else,” he said. “We’ll work together to help communities understand the rights of others and avoid retrogressive and barbaric actions on other human beings.”

Tanzanian police admit witchcraft-related killings are common in the country’s northwest but say catching the culprits is difficult. The lynchings tend to occur after someone dies unexpectedly in the community or when albinos go missing, said police spokesman Ignas Mtana.

Often, he said, sorcerers identify other witches as the perpetrators of the misfortunes. Because the same people who attack witches often consult with other enchanters and potentially also deal in albino body parts, it’s hard to get to the bottom of the cases, Mtana said.

“The family members will go to soothsayers to find out the cause of death and the responsible person,” Mtana said. “The soothsayers will say the name of a witch as the cause of death.”

Mtana said police intervene in lynchings they witness and arrest anyone attacking a suspected witch on sight, but forces are spread thin throughout the region, which includes the great plains of the Serengeti.

In the meantime, women are hiding out of fear of being attacked.

“Someone dropped leaflets bearing my name” on a list of suspected sorceresses, said Rosemary Aziza, 76, who lives near Tabora. “I will hide until the things go back to normal.”

HOLY CAT, MASTER, SLOW IT DOWN!

(Click on the image to enlarge it)

SECOND LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST COLORADO POT

A dozen sheriffs from Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas cite the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to overturn Colorado’s legalization of pot

With the financial backing of the Drug Free America Foundation, a dozen sheriffs from Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas filed a lawsuit Thursday in federal court in Denver in an attempt to overturn Colorado’s legalization of pot. The sheriffs cite the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution in their effort to overturn the amendment to Colorado’s Constitution which legalized the recreational use of marijuana.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”

This means that whenever there is a conflict between federal and state laws, the federal laws prevail over any conflicting state laws.

This lawsuit follows a similar suit filed last December by the attorney generals of Nebraska and Oklahoma.

Attorney General Eric Holder, with the obvious backing of former pot smoker President Barack Obama, has ordered the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration not to enforce the federal laws against the possession, manufacture and distribution of marijuana in those states that have legalized pot, when the growers, dispensers and users do not violate the restrictions placed on them by the state laws.

Holder is able to get away with ordering the Justice Department and the DEA not to enforce federal laws because his oath of office does not include a provision requiring him to uphold all laws.

If Holder had called for the enforcement of federal laws against marijuana, there would be no legalized pot in the states of Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, in the District of Columbia, and in the cities of Portland and South Portland, Maine. And enforcement of the federal laws would also wipe out medical marijuana in those states where it is now legal.

MEXICO’S DRUG CARTELS ADAPT TO U.S. POT LEGALIZATION

The number of opium poppy plantations has surged by 300 percent in the last five years

By Yemeli Ortega

AFP
March 6, 2015

MEXICO CITY -- The growing legalization of cannabis in the United States is forcing Mexico's drug cartels to rethink their illicit business model, turning to opium poppy plantations and domestic pot consumption, experts say.

Americans have been legally allowed to light up joints in the US capital since late last month, joining Washington state and Alaska, while Oregon will follow suit in July.

A total of 23 US states have legalized the drug for medical use, and opinion polls show that a slim majority of Americans favor legalization.

The changes in the world's biggest drug market appear to have prompted the criminal organizations producing narcotics in Mexico to switch strategies.

"As (US) domestic production increases, this will affect production in Mexico," Javier Oliva, a security expert at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, told AFP.

Drug cartels "will seek to increase their exports to Europe and the opportunities for consumption within the country," he said this week at a presentation of a report by the International Narcotics Control Board, a United Nations agency.

Growing poppy fields

With Americans now able to grow their own cannabis in many places, one market the cartels appear to be tapping is the growing consumption of heroin in the United States.

Oliva said the number of opium poppy fields has surged by 300 percent in the last five years in Mexico's southwestern state of Guerrero, one of the country's most violent regions, where 43 students were allegedly slaughtered by a police-backed gang in September.

The scarlet blossoms are also popping up in the north, including in the state of Durango, which forms a "Golden Triangle" of drug plantations with the neighboring regions of Chihuahua and Sinaloa.

Poppy fields outnumber marijuana plantations by three to one, said Adolfo Dominguez, a military commander in Durango.

"The criminals have obviously seen an improvement in this type of cultivation and they also pay attention to the demand factor," Dominguez told AFP.

Heroin consumption in the United States has surged due to tighter controls of prescription opioid drugs, said Alejandro Mohar, a member of the International Narcotics Control Board.

"Opiate-dependent drug users are increasingly turning to heroin, which is typically easier to source and cheaper than prescription opioids," the board's report says.

"Law enforcement authorities in the region have also identified significant increases in heroin purity," it says.

The US heroin market was worth an estimated $27 billion in 2010. But marijuana is a more lucrative business, worth $41 billion that same year, according to US government figures.

Local smokers

America has a huge appetite for marijuana.

More than 1,000 tons of marijuana are seized along the US-Mexico border every year, the report says, citing US Drug Enforcement Administration figures.

And the cannabis confiscated by US customs authorities represented 94 percent of worldwide seizures in 2013.

With Americans now able to grow their own, higher-quality marijuana in some places, Mexican drug cartels will look to sell their weed to local consumers, experts say.

Cannabis now ranks third after alcohol and tobacco in a government ranking of "drugs of impact" that require some kind of medical treatment, said Raul Martin del Campo, representative of the National Commission Against Addictions.

Movements to legalize marijuana have also emerged in Mexico, including in the capital, with the backing of a former president, Vicente Fox.

GOD CREATED POT TO BE SMOKED

A Texas state legislator says that since God created pot, the government should butt out

I figured that sooner or later some nutcase would come along and claim God intended for us to smoke pot. Here we have a Republican nutcase who, after reading the bible, believes that pot is a blessing from God. For Texas State Representative David Simpson the answer to ‘What would Jesus do?’ is ‘He’d get stoned.’

STATE REP. SIMPSON SAYS GOD WANTS TO LEGALIZE WEED
"And the Lord said, 'Man, some Cheetos would hit the spot right now....'"

By Craig Malisow

Houston Press
March 3, 2015

We don't agree with state Rep. David Simpson on a lot of things. Okay, most things. But the guy surprised us with a novel argument in favor of decriminalizing marijuana: It's what God would want.

"I don't believe that when God made marijuana, he made a mistake that government needs to fix," the Longview Republican wrote Monday for the Texas Tribune's TribTalk blog. (We like to picture him smoking a spliff rolled with papers ripped from Thessalonians, but that's probably never happened.)

Simpson has introduced a bill to repeal marijuana offenses while at the same time introducing bills that would bring civil penalties for the sale of synthetic drugs -- he sees a link between the two.

"...our current 'war on drugs' policies, though well intended, have accomplished the exact opposite, spurring a proliferation of ever-changing exotic designer drugs," he writes.

But it's his use of the Gospel to allow the packing of a fat bowl that really made us pay attention. His argument is logical and internally consistent: "The Bible warns about excessive drinking, eating and sleeping (Proverbs 23:21), but it doesn't ban the activities or the substances or conditions associated with them -- alcohol, food and fatigue. Elsewhere, feasting and wine are recognized as blessings from God."

If anything, Simpson's argument doesn't go far enough. Coca leaves and poppies are other gifts from the Big Botanist in the Sky, yet Simpson's not calling for decriminalization of the hard stuff.

Simpson also co-authored a bill that would penalize any government employee who issues a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

This flies in the face of Simpson's bottom-line sentiment: "Civil government should value everything God made and leave people alone unless they meddle with their neighbor."

Well, it seems that Simpson believes God created humankind. And if one human loves and wants to marry another human, government has no business butting in. When it comes to that aspect of individual liberty, Simpson may want to examine his own cloudy vision. We hear that taking a puff or two helps with that.

CAREER BUSTERS: WINE, WOMEN AND GUNS

Many cops have been brought down by wine, women and guns, but ‘The Yellow Rose of Texas’ brought down a whole nation

Recently I wrote about a Florida police chief who got fired after he was caught in a prostitution sting. That was just one example of a cop getting brought down over women. Wine, women and guns or any combination thereof, can be career busters for anyone, but especially for cops. We know that alcohol and guns can be a deadly mixture. And we know that a lot of off-duty cops get boozed up while carrying a gun, a prescription for getting into serious trouble.

While hanky panky with women can bring down a cop, one woman brought down a whole nation. No, it wasn’t Monica Lewinsky. Monica nearly brought down the Clinton presidency. Emily West brought down the nation of Mexico.

March 2 is Texas Independence Day because on that date in 1836, sixty delegates signed the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico. That led to a war which is best known for the Battle of the Alamo. But the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836 was the decisive battle that ended the war and forced Mexico to recognize an independent Republic of Texas. And legend has it that a mulatto woman, Emily West, brought down the Mexican army under the command of President/General Santa Anna.

Emily West worked as an indentured servant for Col. James Morgan, a wealthy land owner. Morgan’s plantation sat aside the grounds of the Battle of San Jacinto. Legend has it that Morgan sent West to seduce Santa Anna so that she could spy on him for the Texans. Another version claims that West was captured when the Mexicans overran Morgan’s plantation and that Santa Anna singled her out for some hanky panky.

With their leader busy banging West, his soldiers also partied the night away. The Mexicans were disorganized when Sam Houston’s 900-man militia struck their encampment in a broad-daylight surprise attack. It took the Texans only 20 minutes to defeat the 1,400-man Mexican army. The Texans killed around 700 Mexican soldiers, wounded 208 and took 730 prisoners while suffering only nine killed and 30 wounded. The surprise attack interrupted Santa Anna’s sexual escapade with West. He fled in just a shirt and his long johns, but was captured the next day,.

At first Santa Anna’s captors believed he was just an ordinary soldier, but when other prisoners kept addressing him as "El Presidente," the Texans realized they had captured the president of Mexico. And on May 14, 1836, Santa Anna signed a treaty in which he promised to persuade the Mexican congress to recognize Texas as an independent republic in return for his safe passage back to Mexico City.

So, where a couple of Sheriff’s deputies posing as prostitutes brought down a Florida police chief, Emily West brought down a whole nation. Santa Anna learned too late that wine, women and guns could be career busters. And whether the legend is true or not, Emily West had a song composed in her honor. That song is “The Yellow Rose of Texas.” Here are the lyrics of the original version:

There's a yellow rose in Texas, that I am going to see,
No other darky knows her, no darky only me
She cryed so when I left her it like to broke my heart,
And if I ever find her, we nevermore will part.

[Chorus] She's the sweetest rose of color this darky ever knew,
Her eyes are bright as diamonds, they sparkle like the dew;
You may talk about your Dearest May, and sing of Rosa Lee,
But the Yellow Rose of Texas is the only girl for me.

When the Rio Grande is flowing, the starry skies are bright,
She walks along the river in the quite [sic] summer night:
She thinks if I remember, when we parted long ago,
I promised to come back again, and not to leave her so.

[Chorus] She's the sweetest rose of color this darky ever knew,
Her eyes are bright as diamonds, they sparkle like the dew;
You may talk about your Dearest May, and sing of Rosa Lee,
But the Yellow Rose of Texas is the only girl for me.

Oh now I'm going to find her, for my heart is full of woe,
And we'll sing the songs togeather [sic], that we sung so long ago
We'll play the bango gaily, and we'll sing the songs of yore,
And the Yellow Rose of Texas shall be mine forevermore.

[Chorus] She's the sweetest rose of color this darky ever knew,
Her eyes are bright as diamonds, they sparkle like the dew;
You may talk about your Dearest May, and sing of Rosa Lee,
But the Yellow Rose of Texas is the only girl for me.

The descriptive term “yellow” was in keeping with the historical use by Southerners of the term "high yellow" to describe Blacks who had a light skin. Eventually political correctness changed some of the wording. “Darky” was replaced by “soldier” and "She's the sweetest rose of color” was changed to "She's the sweetest little rosebud.”

Now, when you take that first drink, especially if you're a cop, be sure to remember that wine, women and guns can be career busters!

MARIJUANA ENTHUSIASTS SEEK TO CAPITALIZE ON EVOLVING U.S. POT LAWS

By Thomas Watkins

AFP
March 2, 2015

Washington -- From aspiring "bud tenders" to research scientists and Wall Street analysts, marijuana enthusiasts of every stripe gathered in Washington looking for ways to capitalize on America's evolving pot laws.

Billions of dollars could be up for grabs in years to come as states allow medical marijuana or fully decriminalize the drug -- even though it remains illegal under federal law.

In a scene unthinkable during the first two decades of America's long-standing "war on drugs," dozens of pot industry representatives squeezed into a swish hotel just a few blocks from the United States Capitol.

Several were raising money for cannabis ventures or looking to recruit staff but -- aside from some futuristic-looking metal pipes and glass bongs -- there was little of the paraphernalia one might ordinarily expect at a cannabis convention.

"It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and you kind of need to jump on it now to be ahead of the game," said Nicklaus Tilford, a Tennessee chef who had just given his resume to a Washington-based medicinal marijuana grower searching for a part-time "junior gardener."

"It's either now or never," he said.

A total of 23 states have now legalized marijuana for medical use. Colorado, Washington state, Alaska, Oregon and the US capital have recently passed laws legalizing it altogether.

Other vacant positions up for grabs included marijuana "bud tender," a plant trimmer, cannabinoid research scientists and even genetic analysts.

While the part-time junior gardener position only offered $12 an hour, Pritesh Kumar, who heads the Phytostaffing medicinal cannabis staffing agency, said the starting salary for an expert chemist was between $150,000 and $300,000.

- Pot in the nation's capital -

The event came two days after Washington started allowing pot use. People in the nation's capital can now light up in private without fear of arrest, though selling the drug and consuming it on federal grounds remain prohibited.

Washington residents can, however, grow up to six plants. Many attendees of the weekend convention came seeking cultivation tips.

"The goal for today is really to get a feel for the DC area," Kumar said, referring to the capital district.

Voters in several more states are likely to consider legalization measures in 2016 elections, including California -– home to about 40 million people and responsible for a huge part of the US economy.

Opinion polls show a slim majority of Americans support marijuana legalization.

"Americans are sick and tired of this prohibition. There's no indication this is having any effect whatsoever," National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws executive director Allen St Pierre said in a recent interview.

"I am sitting here three blocks from the White House, I can literally call a bike courier here in DC and have cannabis delivered quicker than a Chinese meal one block away."

Scott Greiper, president of cannabis consulting and financial services firm Viridian Capital & Research, said legal marijuana sales jumped from $250 million in 2012 to $2.5 billion last year.

Greiper's company helps smaller, "mom and pop" marijuana firms scale up by bringing in experts and even former federal law enforcement officials to offer advice.

"As much as there's a growth opportunity in the sector... we find that the people that are actually running these businesses don't have a lot of experience and track record of growing," he said.

- 'Inhaled frequently' -

Though the drug remains illegal under federal law, President Barack Obama's administration has come to endorse a hands-off approach.

Obama, who has admitted to using marijuana as a youngster and having "inhaled frequently," has backed states' rights to decide how they handle the drug.

Once taboo, many politicians now support legalization, eying potential savings in prison and court costs, as well as tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenue.

Activists say marijuana enforcement wastes billions of dollars in police and prison costs, and has a life-long impact on users who get a criminal record, including problems finding work.

Additionally, African Americans are much more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana possession, even though both groups consume it at similar rates.

"The long-term outcomes of incarceration are significantly worse than the health outcomes of marijuana use," said Malik Burnett, a policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance in Washington.

But support for legalization is not universal.

Carla Lowe, who lives in the California state capital Sacramento and is founder of Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana, worried about the potential adverse effects of marijuana on young brains.

Her group believes IQ scores can fall by as much as eight points with marijuana use, which can also increase high school dropout rates.

"We have to fight it with every ounce of our being," she said. "It has no redeeming factor."

NETANYAHU'S APPEARANCE BEFORE CONGRESS APPLAUDED BY REPUBLICANS

50 or so Democrats, including Vice President Joe Biden, boycotted the speech while the remaining Democrats sat on their hands for most of the speech

Netanyahu’s speech to Congress today was loudly applauded by Republicans while 50 or so Democrats, including Vice President Joe Biden, boycotted his appearance. The remaining Democrats sat on their hands for most of the speech.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi was visibly pissed off during the speech. Afterwards she said that she was near tears, “saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States” and the “condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran.”

Here is a transcript of Netanyahu’s speech:

Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority -- Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it's good to see you back on your feet.

I guess it's true what they say, you can't keep a good man down.

My friends, I'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.

I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.

I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.

The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.

Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American -- of America's people and of America's presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel. Now, some of that is widely known.

Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N. Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.

I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment. Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.

In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there. And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.

But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.

Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you've done for Israel.

My friends, I've come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated -- he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.

But Iran's regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran's regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.

The people of Iran are very talented people. They're heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots -- religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to ``export the revolution throughout the world.''

I'm standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America's founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world's oil supply.

Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That's just last week, while they're having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran's attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow. So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!

Rouhani's government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I'd like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran's regime is as radical as ever, its cries of ``Death to America,'' that same America that it calls the ``Great Satan,'' as loud as ever. Now, this shouldn't be surprising, because the ideology of Iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Don't be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn't turn Iran into a friend of America.

Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.

So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember -- I'll say it one more time -- the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can't let that happen.

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.
Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran's break-out time would be very short -- about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's.

And if -- if Iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran's nuclear program and Iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here's the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don't stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn't stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

Now, we're warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It's done that on at least three separate occasions -- 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.

Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock -- as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught -- caught twice, not once, twice -- operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn't even know existed.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don't know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, ``If there's no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn't have one.'' Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that's why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It's a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran's Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount -- 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

And by the way, if Iran's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.

So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That's why this deal is so bad. It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite -- would only wet Iran's appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world's: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel's neighbors -- Iran's neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb.

And many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won't change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won't be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks -- if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we'll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.

Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second...

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

Thank you. If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.

My friends, what about the argument that there's no alternative to this deal, that Iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. A race car driver without a car can't drive. A pilot without a plan can't fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can't make nuclear weapons.

Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table -- and this often happens in a Persian bazaar -- call their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more. My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.

Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.

A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends.

A better deal that won't give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country ... no country has a greater stake -- no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.

The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.
Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, ``never again.''

And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace. But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

This is why -- this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.

But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

I know that you stand with Israel.

You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors.

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.

And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), ``Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.''

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

You're wonderful.

Thank you, America. Thank you. Thank you.

REASONABLE RULING AGAINST UNREASONABLE RULES

The California Supreme Court ruled that San Diego County’s blanket ban on where sex offenders can live is unconstitutional

San Diego County prohibits sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a school or park where children gather. That makes it practically impossible for convicted sex offenders to reside anywhere within San Diego County.

On Monday, in a unanimous ruling, the California Supreme Court banned the blanket residence ban San Diego County imposed on convicted sex offenders. The seven justices held that those residence restrictions were likely to make sex offenders homeless and interfered with the supervision of sex offender parolees. Thus the court declared that the county’s residence ban was unconstitutional.

Justice Marvin Baxter wrote:

“Blanket enforcement of the residency restrictions against these parolees has severely restricted their ability to find housing. The rules have increased the incidence of homelessness among them, and hindered their access to medical treatment, drug and alcohol dependency services, psychological counseling and other rehabilitative social services available to all parolees.”

While this ruling applies only to San Diego County, it opens the door for sex offenders in other California counties to challenge similar residence restrictions.

I have long opposed residence restrictions that made it impossible for a sex offender to live with his wife and children, with his adult children, with his brother or cousin. Those ordinances are merely feel-good laws that really do not protect children from sexual predators. Monday's decision was a reasonable ruling against unreasonable rules.

WITH FRIENDS LIKE OBAMA, ISRAEL DOES NOT NEED ANY ENEMIES

Reports from Kuwait allege that when the U.S. was told of Israel’s plan to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Obama threatened to shoot down any Israeli jets before they could reach their targets

If the report is true that the U.S. threatened to shoot down any Israeli jets on their way to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, then with friends like Obama, Israel does not need any enemies.

REPORT: OBAMA THREATENED TO SHOOT DOWN IAF IRAN STRIKE
A Kuwaiti paper claims an unnamed Israeli minister with good ties to the Obama administration 'revealed the attack plan to John Kerry' and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran

By Mark Langfan

Israel National News
March 1, 2015

The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

Following Obama's threat, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly forced to abort the planned Iran attack.

According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel's back.

The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

Al-Jarida quoted "well-placed" sources as saying that Netanyahu, along with Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon, and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, had decided to carry out airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program after consultations with top security commanders.

According to the report, “Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army's chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran's nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel's security.”

The sources added that Gantz and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets reportedly even carried out experimental flights in Iran's airspace after they managed to break through radars.

Brzezinski's idea

Former US diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for Obama in 2008, called on him to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to former President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast.

“We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse.’"

Israel mistakenly attacked the American Liberty ship during the Six-Day War in 1967.

Brzezinski was a top candidate to become an official advisor to President Obama, but he was downgraded after Republican and pro-Israel Democratic charges during the campaign that Brzezinski’s anti-Israel attitude would damage Obama at the polls.

FLORIDA POLICE CHIEF BUSTED IN PROSTITUTION STING

Miami Gardens is looking for a new police chief after Stephen Johnson got caught shelling out $100 for a threesome

On Friday, a couple of women met up with Miami Gardens Police Chief Stephen Johnson at a Dania Beach motel. After he handed them $100 for a 30-minute threesome, Johnson learned the hard way that he had been dealing with some Broward County sheriff’s officers posing as prostitutes. Instead of bedding down with the two women, the hapless top cop spent Friday night in the Broward County jail. He bailed out Saturday morning.

Johnson had responded to a website offering escorts. He was offered one woman for a 30-minute tryst at $80 or two at $100. Naturally, Johnson chose the bargain offer. He also asked for the women to wear heels, saying that he had a fetish for heels.

Jonson told reporters the stress of the job led him to seek out prostitutes. “The stress overwhelmed me and I made a very bad decision.” The City of Miami Gardens quickly relieved Johnson of that stress by firing him.