Posts by olddog:
August 21st, 2014 by olddog
By David Horowitz
Let me begin by acknowledging that this inspirational title is lifted from a tweet by screen actor James Woods. And now I will explicate his tweet.
Every sentient human being whose brain isn’t stuffed with ideological fairy dust can see that Obama is behind every major scandal of his administration from Benghazi to the I.R.S. disgrace. How can one know this? Because the culprits haven’t been fired. Moreover, if they are serial liars like Susan Rice, they’ve actually been promoted to posts where their loyalty to the criminal-in-chief can do America and its citizens even more damage, if that is possible.
A president faced with a scandal created by underlings behind his back would be naturally furious at their misbehavior, and want heads to roll. This didn’t happen in any of these scandals because their point of origin was the White House itself. Promoting the culprits is a way of keeping them quiet.
And what exactly is the I.R.S. scandal about — to take just one case? It’s a plan unprecedented in modern American politics to push the political system towards a one-party state by using the taxing authority of the government to cripple and destroy the political opposition. The administration’s campaign to promote voter fraud by opposing measures to stop it (and defaming them as “racist” is guided by the same intentions and desire).
And why shouldn’t Obama want to destroy the two-party system since he is also in utter contempt of the Constitutional framework, making law illegally, and defying an impotent Congress to stop him? Of course every radical, like Obama, hates the Constitutional framework because, as Madison explained in Federalist #10, it is designed to thwart “the wicked projects” of the left to redistribute income and destroy the free market.
The same desire to overwhelm and permanently suppress the opposition drives the war that Obama and the Democrats have conducted against America’s borders and therefore American sovereignty. Their plan is to flood the country with illegals of whatever stripe who will be grateful enough for the favor to win them elections and create a permanent majority in their favor. The immediate result of these efforts is that we have no secure southern border, and therefore no border; and therefore we have effectively invited criminals and terrorists to come across and do Americans harm.
Which brings us to the deepest level of Obama’s hell, which is his anti-American foreign policy. When Obama was re-elected in 2012, the very first thought I had was this: A lot of people are going to be dead because of this election. How disastrously right I was. Since their assault on George Bush and their sabotage of the war in Iraq, Obama and the Democrats have forged a power vacuum in Europe and even more dramatically in the Middle East, which nasty characters have predictably entered with ominous implications for the future security of all Americans.
Take one aspect of this epic default: Obama’s lack of response to the slaughter of Christians in Palestine, Egypt and Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Christians have been slaughtered and driven from their homes in Iraq – over half a million by some counts. This is the oldest Christian community in the world dating back to the time of Christ. What was Obama’s response to this atrocity until a group of Yazvidi along with the Christians were trapped on a mountain side, and politics dictated he had to make some gesture. His response was to do and say nothing. Silence. Even his statement announcing minimal action to save the Yazvidi and the Christians mentioned the Christians once in passing while devoting a paragraph to the obscure Yazvidi.
What this unfeeling and cold response to the slaughter of Christians tells us is that Obama is a pretend Christian just the way he is a pretend American. What he is instead is a world class liar. That is because his real agendas are anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish, and obviously and consistently pro America’s third world adversaries to whom he is always apologizing and whom he is always appeasing. Obama lies about his intentions and policies because he couldn’t survive politically if he told the truth,
The socialist plot against individual freedom called Obamacare was sold as a charitable attempt to cover the uninsured (which it doesn’t), to lower health insurance costs (which it doesn’t) and to allow patients to keep their doctor and their plan (which it doesn’t). What it actually does is to take away a major piece of the freedom that Americans once enjoyed — the freedom to choose their plan and their doctor, and not to have the government control their health care or have easy access to all their financial information.
This devious, deceitful, power hungry administration is just as James Woods described it. But it is also a mounting danger for all Americans. Thanks to his global retreat, the terrorists Obama falsely claims are “on the run” are in fact gathering their strength and their weapons of mass destruction until a day will come when they will cross our porous borders and show us what years of perfidy not only by Obama but by the whole Democratic Party have wrought.
August 20th, 2014 by olddog
SCOTT H. GREENFIELD
Via Reason’s Matt Welch, the Washington Post provides the insight of 17-year LAPD veteran turned “homeland security” professor at Colorado Tech University, Sunil Dutta, as to the mindset of the police officer on the mean streets of Ferguson. Lest there be any doubt as to where this is heading, it’s entitled, I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.
Don’t start spitting yet. Wait for the deeper insight into how terribly wrong we are to misunderstand everything coming out of Ferguson, from the killing of Michael Brown to the management of the community. There is a very real problem, according to Dutta. We don’t get it.
It is also a terrible calumny; cops are not murderers. No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed. And while they’re unlikely to defend it quite as loudly during a time of national angst like this one, people who work in law enforcement know they are legally vested with the authority to detain suspects — an authority that must sometimes be enforced. Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions from turning into tragedies.
In case you’re wondering, the calumny (meaning “character assassination”) has nothing to do with the smear of dead Michael Brown, but the “cops are murderers” strawman Dutta seeks to sneak past us.
Of course “cops are not murderers.” Murderers are murderers. Sometimes, murderers are cops. And indeed, in the “overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops.” Nobody suggests otherwise. But then, how many cops have to murder to make it a problem for you. Is one percent of a half million interactions sufficient? Why that’s a mere 5000 murders. A drop in your bucket, Dutta?
Of course, there are also the beatings, the tasings, the occasional rapes and/or sexual assaults, but you didn’t claim cops aren’t rapists, and I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth.
Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority.
Did someone tell you at the Academy that the public would be showering you with kisses and adoration? Perhaps they suggested you would carry all that cool hardware on your service belt because people would get in your personal space to request your autograph, you rock star, you.
Oh wait. You were a cop. Your job was to deal with people who were often displeased to see you. Are you complaining? Do you want to give back your pension?
Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you.
That’s not, of course, because you, the police officer, are smarter, more concerned, more thoughtful, more sensitive or more knowledgeable. Rather, it’s because you have weapons and will use them. So this is as true for police officers as, say, an armed robber on the street.
Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.
In most human interactions, there is a bit of rational give and take. Granted, you shirk it off because you’ve heard it all before. Oh, to be so world-weary that no one (who doesn’t sign your evals) could possibly have anything to say that might be worth listening to. But you have command presence; right or wrong is well past relevant. It’s now about control, and you will use whatever force is available to exert total domination because, well, that’s what somebody in the Academy told you to do.
Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?
This is where we, sadly, part ways. When you use the word “cooperate,” you do so applying the cop definition. We, non-cops, are to cooperate with you, cop. We, as you’ve already told us, are to do as you say. Your idea of cooperation has nothing whatsoever to do with cooperation. It’s just a much better word than “comply or I will inflict pain, perhaps even death.” If they put “comply” on the side of a cruiser, it would really suck as marketing, so you call it “cooperation,” which sounds all warm and fuzzy, much as “stop resisting” sounds reasonable as you pound your baton into an unconscious person’s skull. That only happens rarely too.
The disconnect seems to be that the public just won’t do whatever a cop says. Sometimes, they won’t do it fast enough. Sometimes, they don’t do it right enough. Sometimes, they won’t do it at all. Your solution is just do it or you’ve brought the wrath of the police down on your own head. You kinda like the power of cop. It lets you blame the victim for doing what you have to do.
Thanks, Dutta, for explaining this. Thanks for teaching everyone why we continue to have these issues with people getting killed by the non-murderer cops, who just want us to do as they command. And especially, thanks for clearing up the nagging issue of whether pinning a shield to one’s shirt creates an inexplicable potential for dangerously violent behavior based on numerous concerns spelled out in the DSM (pick your number).
You see, we don’t have anything particularly against cops. We have a problem with violent crazies with weapons and shields. Some of them happen to be cops. They shouldn’t. So what exactly does a professor of “homeland security” teach? I’m betting it involves cooperation. Or else.
And the reactions roll in: Ken White at Popehat, and Rick Horowitz. Neither appears interested in taking Prof. Dutta’s class.
New Orleans Police Officer Turns Off Body Camera Minutes Before Shooting Suspect In Forehead
In New Orleans, Armand Bennet, 26, was shot in the forehead during a traffic stop by New Orleans police officer Lisa Lewis. However, the police department did not reveal until much later that Lewis turned off her body camera just before shooting Bennett. Bennett survived and has now been charged under prior warrants for his arrest. It also reviewed that Lewis had had a prior run in with Bennet who escaped about a week earlier.
New Orleans Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas called the late disclosures on the shooting simply a “snafu.”
Lewis’ lawyer says that she turned off her camera because she was heading back to the station at the end of her shift and that the shot was fired during a scuffle after the stop. Bennett’s attorney says that there was no scuffle and that Lewis fired a second shot as Bennett ran away.
The two had been in a scuffle a week before and Bennett had gotten away. The NOPD then issued four warrant for Bennet and those warrants were the basis for the stop.
Putting aside the merits of the officers claims, I am still unclear why these body cameras can even be turned off by officers. The point of a body camera should be that it runs from check in to check out. It should not be under the control of the officer to guarantee a record that cannot be challenged by either side. That would avoid the troubling appearance of an officer with a prior run in with a suspect who turns off her camera minutes before shooting the suspect in the head.
Kudos: Michael Blott
August 19th, 2014 by olddog
The new Army manual, known as ATP 3-39.33, provides discussion and techniques about civil disturbances and crowd control operations that occur in the continental United States (CONUS) and outside the continental United States (OCONUS).
This document, just published this past Friday, August 15, 2014, promises to change the way the “authorities” deal with protesters, even peaceful ones. The consequences of ATP 39.33 could prove deadly for protesters. Further, the provisions of this Army manual could prove to be the end of the First Amendment right to assemble peaceably.
In section 1-2., the manual states that “Civil unrest may range from simple, nonviolent protests that address specific issues, to events that turn into full-scale riots.” This section of the manual clearly states that protesting is a right protected by the Constitution. However, the authorities leave themselves an out to “legally” engage in lethal force toward protesters when the manual states that “peaceful protests can turn into full-scale riots” and field commanders have the right to make that determination. Subsequently, all protests, peaceful or not, need to be managed by the potential for violence. In other words, all protests are to be considered to be violent and handled accordingly. This certainly explains the violent manhandling of the media by the DHS controlled and militarized police in Ferguson, MO.
Posse Comitatus Is Violated
On the surface, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) act should prevent the Army from deploying the troops in the midst of a protest that is not on the scale of something like the 1992 LA Riots. However, the Army claims exemption from Posse Comitatus in the four following areas.
- 10 USC 331. When a state is unable to control domestic violence and they have requested federal assistance, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
- 10 USC 332. When ordinary enforcement means are unworkable due to unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
- 10 USC 333. When a state cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens, due to domestic violence or conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
- House Joint Resolution 1292. This resolution directs all departments of the U.S. government, upon request of the Secret Service, to assist in carrying out its statutory duties to protect government officials and major political candidates from physical harm.
With regard to 10 USC 331, if the local authorities have lost control in the midst of a profound display of domestic violence (e.g. LA Riots), most Americans support the use of National Guard or the military. However, in 10 USC 332, 333 and House Joint Resolution 1292 are ripe with exceptions which open the door to federal authorities abusing the public for exercising their Constitutional right to protest.
In 10 USC 332, the phrase “unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized,” permits the federal government from being demonstrated against. An act of demonstration, or the most benign demonstrations of civil disobedience gives the government the authority to take “deadly action” against the public because there are no clear distinctions on when the use of lethal and nonlethal force is appropriate (see the two charts displayed below).
In 10 USC 333, any disruption of federal law can be decisively dealt with by the federal government. The phrase “…conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized” is a telling passage of this Army document. If 10 USC 333 is applied to the letter of the written Army policy, the protesters who recently objected to illegal aliens being deposited in Murietta, California, could be subject to deadly force. Further, the protesters in Ferguson could be subject to the use of lethal force as well (Again, see the charts below).
The next time a community decides that it does not want to accept illegal immigrants, or protest the shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old, they could be met by the following:
The fourth exception claimed by the Army, with regard to the Army’s right to violate Posse Comitatus, is presented to the American people under the veil of the need to protect politicians.
House Resolution 1292 claims any protest which makes a public official feel “threatened” would be illegal and subject to intervention by the U.S. Army. Hypothetically, if 100 protesters were to gather outside of Senator John McCain‘s office in Phoenix, would that be enough to trigger a violent response by the Army? If McCain says he feels threatened, regardless if his claims are legitimate or not, it most certainly would justify the strongest response possible from the Army. Therefore, all a politician has to do is to say they feel threatened by any gathering to have the gathering dispersed and the protesters dealt with in any manner seen fit by the field commander. Make no mistake about it, this is the end of the First Amendment’s right peaceably assemble.
Army Depictions On How Best to Kill An American Citizen Who Expresses Disagreement with the Government
Do you remember the uproar when DHS was caught distributing target practicing sheets of pregnant women to be used for DHS agents when they were engaged in target practicing?
August 18th, 2014 by olddog
How The Material Dialectic Overcame Our Pulpits
By David A. McElroy
August 11, 2014
Critics often say “successful” churches tend to resemble country clubs, and their pastors function more like corporate executives than spiritual leaders or evangelists. We see mega-churches touted as the “feel-good”, “seeker friendly” paradigm to emulate. We should ask how this has come about, and look to the Holy Bible and some reputable research.
George Barna has long been recognized as a leading researcher of Christian issues, and recently published some shocking facts at OneNewsNow.com this month. Barna says when it comes to a controversy, he found “…less than 10% of pastors who say they will speak to it.” Who will rebuke evil if our pastors will not?
Why are some 90% of pastors, reported by Barna, avoiding controversy and carefully sidestepping certain biblical issues relevant to today’s circumstances? Barna says, as many have suspected, “Controversy keeps people from being in the seats, controversy keeps people from giving money, from attending programs.” And the measure of a church’s success, as taught in seminary courses on church administration and quarterly business reports, comes down to five metrics Barna cites:
1. Attendance (number of people)
2. Giving (number of dollars)
3. Programs (number of budgeted activities)
4. Staff (number of persons on payroll)
5. Square Footage (number of facilities)
How did these corporate metrics come to overwhelm the church and supplant the drive for biblical teaching and spiritual growth in Christ? I would posit that church boards and pastors, and, yes, the seminaries, have fallen to these metrics because material things can be precisely measured, whereas spiritual matters do not lend themselves to any system of measure. Spiritual growth is a personal matter science is not equipped to measure. And business practices demand the numbers, precise measures, statistical data. Church boards are dominated by businessmen serving as deacons, pastors, or elders, and most prominent givers are also the business people who do the math and demand accountability. But what would Jesus do?
I recall Christ let Judas handle the money in his ministry, and we know how he wound up!
Jesus always said it was his mission to do the will of his Father in Heaven. What did the Lord God Almighty say about doing things by the numbers? Read I Chronicles 21:1-8, where it begins: “And Satan provoked David to number Israel…” God expressly forbade King David from numbering his people to know the strength of Israel. God wanted the king to trust God’s strength rather the number of his troops, but David wanted that statistical information and numbered them anyway. Statistics are the measure of the state, and most statisticians are employed by governments. Do we trust God, or the numbers?
Churches, through the science of mathematics employed in business administration, have followed the state’s corporate model in doing everything by the numbers.
Speaking of the five “successful church” metrics Barna lists, he says “Now all of those things are good measures, except for one tiny fact: Jesus didn’t die for any of them.” And I would note that the fruits of the spirit are not among those five measures. Christ died to save souls that they might have eternal life abundantly in spiritual growth. Christ gave the Great Commission for our souls’ salvation and spiritual growth, not numbers in business ledgers or impressive stacks of brick and mortar with stained glass windows! He did not die so men with Texas-sized egos could prance on TV begging for money!
Why do things by the numbers? Fear of loss, the quest for material gain. What does the epistle of Paul to the Philippians say about this in 3:7-8 ? Paul wrote: “But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.” What are we willing to lose for Christ? Are you willing, as Christ bids, to take up your cross and follow him to the bloody end? Or is a cushy pew in an air-conditioned atmosphere of non-controversial happy talk saturated with coffee and donuts your priority? What is your church board or pastor willing to risk following Christ? What loss will you bear for Jesus? Would you face beheading for the Lord Jesus like our brothers and sisters in Iraq? Why are we in prosperous churches risking nothing to rescue them?
We are called to battle evil as Christian soldiers clad in the full armor of God as we read in Ephesians 6:10-20. Christianity is not a spectator sport or a life of leisure. When Christ sent his disciples out as his emissaries, we read in Mark 6:8 that he “…commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only: no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse.” Today, ministers expect a generous salary, a nice office, a comfy house, and a church vehicle… perhaps even a plush Gulfstream jet!
Chuck Baldwin, a prominent non-denominational Baptist pastor, expounded upon Barna’s research in his New Research: Pastors Deliberately Keeping Flock In The Dark , which was published in News With Views online. Baldwin is among the proponents of the unregistered church movement, refusing the 501(c)(3) tax exemption Uncle Sam grants through the Internal Revenue Service. The primary issue is that the federal statute for that monetary consideration requires the church to obey and conform to all federal laws and policies, surrendering the headship of Christ to Uncle Sam. True Christians know Christ is the head of the church and will never surrender his Lordship. The Apostle Paul suffered execution in Rome because he refused to say Caesar was his god.
Jesus Christ said , “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s…” in Mark 12:17. Do you even know the difference? Have you or your church been sucked into Caesar’s game of numbers, the trap of mammon? Who is referenced in the motto on our coins that says “In God We Trust”? Which “God”? Do you know the meaning of that pyramid on the back of your dollar bills? Look it up. Could you perhaps do with less of Caesar’s currency and move to an alternative means of exchange? Will you submit to the “cashless society” and accept the Mark of the Beast ? It is coming!
Military chaplains are forbidden to pray in Jesus’ name or display a cross in the chapels, Gideon Bibles are prohibited in military hotels, and the Ten Commandments are not to be seen on public property. The Bible, Jesus, and prayer are forbidden in public schools. And the pulpits are largely silent on these and other issues. Alcohol, adultery, Freemasonry, pornography, homosexuality, abortion, class war, and other things are overlooked in “not wanting to offend” with talk of sin. Hell is not a pleasant subject! The pews and collection plates must be filled, the church must be, like Disneyland, “the happiest place on Earth”!
Now “President Obama has issued an executive order that requires Christians , Christian groups, and Christian ministries to have no management restriction on transgendered or homosexual lifestyles in their organizations,” reports the election forum.org August 11th.
The order applies to all organizations benefiting from federal funding, like financial aid to Christian college students and religious social service ministries. The forum article said “The president now has ordered that the only way a Christian or Christian group can work with the US government is to deny their Christian beliefs and values.” Indeed!
Soon the five corporate metrics for the “successful church” will bring us to where we find communist China’s state approved churches: large impressive bodies constrained by the metrics of the material dialectic offering a watered-down partial gospel, speaking of God but denying the power thereof as they prostrate themselves before Mammon, Molech, and Lucifer!
Onward Christian soldiers, the battle is joined! Forget about the numbers. Trust God!
Having studied Christian theology for fifteen years, there is a lot I could say about the various Churches being far from God, and even farther from the scriptures, but David, having constrained himself has set a good example, so I will follow his lead and say no more.
August 18th, 2014 by olddog
A law enforcement officer watches Sunday, Aug. 17, 2014, as tear gas is fired to disperse
a crowd protesting the shooting of teenager Michael Brown last Saturday in Ferguson, Mo.
BY DAVID A. LIEB AND JIM SALTER
Associated Press writer Nigel Duara contributed to this report.
FERGUSON, Mo. — The first night of a state-imposed curfew in Ferguson, Missouri, ended with tear gas and seven arrests, after police dressed in riot gear used armored vehicles to disperse defiant protesters who refused to leave a St. Louis suburb where a black, unarmed teen had been shot by a white police officer a week earlier.
Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson said protesters weren’t the reason for the escalated police reaction early Sunday morning after the midnight curfew took effect, but a report of people who had broken into a barbecue restaurant and a man who flashed a handgun in the street as armored vehicles approached the crowd of protesters.
Also overnight, a man was shot and critically wounded in the same area, but not by police; authorities were searching for the shooter. Someone also shot at a police car, officials said.
The protests have been going on since 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed Aug. 9 by a white Ferguson officer, Darren Wilson. The death heightened racial tensions between the predominantly black community and mostly white Ferguson Police Department, leading to several run-ins between police and protesters and prompting Missouri’s governor to put the Highway Patrol in charge of security.
The Ferguson Police Department waited six days to publicly reveal the name of the officer and documents alleging Brown robbed a convenience store before he was killed, though Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Wilson did not know Brown was a suspect when he encountered him walking in the street with a friend.
Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency in Ferguson on Saturday after protests turned violent the night before. In announcing the curfew, Nixon said that though many protesters were making themselves heard peacefully, the state would not allow looters to endanger the community.
“I am committed to making sure the forces of peace and justice prevail,” Nixon said during a news conference that was interrupted repeatedly by people objecting to the curfew and demanding that Wilson be charged with murder. “We must first have and maintain peace. This is a test. The eyes of the world are watching.”
It isn’t clear how many days curfew will be in effect. State statute gives the governor broad powers when he declares a state of emergency, but he hasn’t indicated that he plans to do anything other than imposing the curfew and empowering the state highway patrol to enforce it.
Meanwhile, Nixon said the U.S. Department of Justice is beefing up its civil rights investigation of the shooting.
Johnson, who is in charge of security in Ferguson, said 40 FBI agents were going door-to-door in the neighborhood starting Saturday, talking to people who might have seen or have information about the shooting.
Johnson said earlier Saturday that police would not enforce the curfew with armored trucks and tear gas but would communicate with protesters and give them ample opportunity to leave. Local officers faced strong criticism earlier in the week for their use of tear gas and rubber bullets against protesters.
But as the curfew deadline arrived early Sunday, remaining protesters refused to leave the area as officers spoke through a loudspeaker: “You are in violation of a state-imposed curfew. You must disperse immediately.”
As officers put on gas masks, a chant from the distant crowd emerged: “We have the right to assemble peacefully.”
A moment later, police began firing canisters into the crowd. Highway Patrol Spokesman Lt. John Hotz initially said police only used smoke, but later told The Associated Press they also used tear gas canisters.
“Obviously, we’re trying to give them every opportunity to comply with the curfew,” Hotz said.
On Saturday, some residents said it appeared the violent acts were being committed by people from other suburbs or states.
“Who would burn down their own backyard?” asked Rebecca McCloud, a local who works with the Sonshine Baptist Church in St. Louis. “These people aren’t from here. They came to burn down our city and leave.”
Wilson, the officer who shot Brown, is a six-year police veteran who had no previous complaints against him, Jackson has said. The Ferguson Police Department has refused to say anything about Wilson’s whereabouts, and Associated Press reporters were unable to contact him at any addresses or phone numbers listed under that name in the St. Louis area.
Wilson has been on paid administrative leave since the shooting. St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch said it could be weeks before the investigation wraps up.
Anyone unaware that it is very possible the word went out to find and make an example of someone who would resist lawful orders needs to study the real state of the union instead of watching stupid TV shows or listening to the media news channels. It is very possible that Obuma has received orders to pass down to the grunts in local P.D.s that Martial law is ready and waiting. FEMA is ready and waiting for the dull and ignorant to be their guest, and I doubt not there are plenty grateful for the perceived protection. When will the people understand that we DO NOT have a legal state or National government? We are the property of the Banking Cartel, Crown, POPE, and they want to thin us out and get rid of those who resist! Only the best suck asses will survive. As far as I’m concerned, those who will not fight back to save their lives, deserve what they get. Even a crippled Grandma can take one of them with her.
August 16th, 2014 by olddog
Photo credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images
By Glenn Greenwald
The intensive militarization of America’s police forces is a serious menace about which a small number of people have been loudly warning for years, with little attention or traction. In a 2007 paper on “the blurring distinctions between the police and military institutions and between war and law enforcement,” the criminal justice professor Peter Kraska defined “police militarization” as “the process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from, and pattern themselves around, the tenets of militarism and the military model.”
The harrowing events of the last week in Ferguson, Missouri – the fatal police shooting of an unarmed African-American teenager, Mike Brown, and the blatantly excessive and thuggish response to ensuing community protests from a police force that resembles an occupying army – have shocked the U.S. media class and millions of Americans. But none of this is aberrational.
It is the destructive by-product of several decades of deliberate militarization of American policing, a trend that received a sustained (and ongoing) steroid injection in the form of a still-flowing, post-9/11 federal funding bonanza, all justified in the name of “homeland security.” This has resulted in a domestic police force that looks, thinks, and acts more like an invading and occupying military than a community-based force to protect the public.
As is true for most issues of excessive and abusive policing, police militarization is overwhelmingly and disproportionately directed at minorities and poor communities, ensuring that the problem largely festers in the dark. Americans are now so accustomed to seeing police officers decked in camouflage and Robocop-style costumes, riding in armored vehicles and carrying automatic weapons first introduced during the U.S. occupation of Baghdad, that it has become normalized. But those who bear the brunt of this transformation are those who lack loud megaphones; their complaints of the inevitable and severe abuse that results have largely been met with indifference.
If anything positive can come from the Ferguson travesties, it is that the completely out-of-control orgy of domestic police militarization receives long-overdue attention and reining in.
Last night, two reporters, The Washington Post‘s Wesley Lowery and The Huffington Post‘s Ryan Reilly, were arrested and assaulted while working from a McDonald’s in Ferguson. The arrests were arbitrary and abusive, and received substantial attention — only because of their prominent platforms, not, as they both quickly pointed out upon being released, because there was anything unusual about this police behavior.
Reilly, on Facebook, recounted how he was arrested by “a Saint Louis County police officer in full riot gear, who refused to identify himself despite my repeated requests, purposefully banged my head against the window on the way out and sarcastically apologized.” He wrote: ”I’m fine. But if this is the way these officers treat a white reporter working on a laptop who moved a little too slowly for their liking, I can’t imagine how horribly they treat others.” He added: “And if anyone thinks that the militarization of our police force isn’t a huge issue in this country, I’ve got a story to tell you.”
Lowery, who is African-American, tweeted a summary of an interview he gave on MSNBC: “If I didn’t work for the Washington Post and were just another Black man in Ferguson, I’d still be in a cell now.” He added: “I knew I was going to be fine. But the thing is, so many people here in Ferguson don’t have as many Twitter followers as I have and don’t have Jeff Bezos or whoever to call and bail them out of jail.”
The best and most comprehensive account of the dangers of police militarization is the 2013 book by the libertarianWashington Post journalist Radley Balko, entitled “Rise of the Warrior Cops: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces.” Balko, who has devoted his career to documenting and battling the worst abuses of the U.S. criminal justice system, traces the history and underlying mentality that has given rise to all of this: the “law-and-order” obsessions that grew out of the social instability of the 1960s, the War on Drugs that has made law enforcement agencies view Americans as an enemy population, the Reagan-era “War on Poverty” (which was more aptly described as a war on America’s poor), the aggressive Clinton-era expansions of domestic policing, all topped off by the massively funded, rights-destroying, post-9/11 security state of the Bush and Obama years. All of this, he documents, has infused America’s police forces with “a creeping battlefield mentality.”
I read Balko’s book prior to publication in order to blurb it, and after I was done, immediately wrote what struck me most about it: “There is no vital trend in American society more overlooked than the militarization of our domestic police forces.” The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim, in the outlet’s official statement about Reilly’s arrest, made the same point: “Police militarization has been among the most consequential and unnoticed developments of our time.”
In June, the ACLU published a crucial 96-page report on this problem, entitled “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing.” Its central point: “the United States today has become excessively militarized, mainly through federal programs that create incentives for state and local police to use unnecessarily aggressive weapons and tactics designed for the battlefield.”
The report documents how the Drug War and (Clinton/Biden) 1990s crime bills laid the groundwork for police militarization, but the virtually unlimited flow of “homeland security” money after 9/11 all but forced police departments to purchase battlefield equipment and other military paraphernalia whether they wanted them or not. Unsurprisingly, like the War on Drugs and police abuse generally, “the use of paramilitary weapons and tactics primarily impacted people of color.”
Some police departments eagerly militarize, but many recognize the dangers. Salt Lake City police chief Chris Burbank is quoted in the ACLU report: “We’re not the military. Nor should we look like an invading force coming in.” A 2011 Los Angeles Times article, noting that “federal and state governments are spending about $75 billion a year on domestic security,” described how local police departments receive so much homeland security money from the U.S. government that they end up forced to buy battlefield equipment they know they do not need: from armored vehicles to Zodiac boats with side-scan sonar.
The trend long pre-dates 9/11, as this 1997 Christian Science Monitor article by Jonathan Landayabout growing police militarization and its resulting abuses (“Police Tap High-Tech Tools of Military to Fight Crime”) makes clear. Landay, in that 17-year-old article, described “an infrared scanner mounted on [a police officer's] car [that] is the same one used by US troops to hunt Iraqi forces in the Gulf war,” and wrote: “it is symbolic of an increasing use by police of some of the advanced technologies that make the US military the world’s mightiest.”
But the security-über-alles fixation of the 9/11 era is now the driving force. A June article in the New York Times by Matt Apuzzo (“War Gear Flows to Police Departments”) reported that “during the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.” He added: “The equipment has been added to the armories of police departments that already look and act like military units.”
All of this has become such big business, and is grounded in such politically entrenched bureaucratic power, that it is difficult to imagine how it can be uprooted. As the LA Timesexplained:
An entire industry has sprung up to sell an array of products, including high-tech motion sensors and fully outfitted emergency operations trailers. The market is expected to grow to $31 billion by 2014.
Like the military-industrial complex that became a permanent and powerful part of the American landscape during the Cold War, the vast network of Homeland Security spyware, concrete barricades and high-tech identity screening is here to stay. The Department of Homeland Security, a collection of agencies ranging from border control to airport security sewn quickly together after Sept. 11, is the third-largest Cabinet department and — with almost no lawmaker willing to render the U.S. less prepared for a terrorist attack — one of those least to fall victim to budget cuts.
The dangers of domestic militarization are both numerous and manifest. To begin with, as the nation is seeing in Ferguson, it degrades the mentality of police forces in virtually every negative way and subjects their targeted communities to rampant brutality and unaccountable abuse. The ACLU report summarized: “excessive militarism in policing, particularly through the use of paramilitary policing teams, escalates the risk of violence, threatens individual liberties, and unfairly impacts people of color.”
Police militarization also poses grave and direct dangers to basic political liberties, including rights of free speech, press and assembly. The first time I wrote about this issue was back in 2008 when I covered the protests outside the GOP national convention in St. Paul for Salon, and was truly amazed by the war-zone atmosphere deliberately created by the police:
St. Paul was the most militarized I have ever seen an American city be, even more so than Manhattan in the week of 9/11 — with troops of federal, state and local law enforcement agents marching around with riot gear, machine guns, and tear gas cannisters, shouting military chants and marching in military formations. Humvees and law enforcement officers with rifles were posted on various buildings and balconies. Numerous protesters and observers were tear gassed and injured.
The same thing happened during the Occupy Wall Street protests of 2011: the police response was so excessive, and so clearly modeled after battlefield tactics, that there was no doubt that deterring domestic dissent is one of the primary aims of police militarization. About that police response, I wrote at the time:
Law enforcement officials and policy-makers in America know full well that serious protests — and more — are inevitable given the economic tumult and suffering the U.S. has seen over the last three years (and will continue to see for the foreseeable future). . . .
The reason the U.S. has para-militarized its police forces is precisely to control this type of domestic unrest, and it’s simply impossible to imagine its not being deployed in full against a growing protest movement aimed at grossly and corruptly unequal resource distribution. As Madeleine Albright said when arguing for U.S. military intervention in the Balkans: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” That’s obviously how governors, big-city Mayors and Police Chiefs feel about the stockpiles of assault rifles, SWAT gear, hi-tech helicopters, and the coming-soon drone technology lavished on them in the wake of the post/9-11 Security State explosion, to say nothing of the enormous federal law enforcement apparatus that, more than anything else, resembles a standing army which is increasingly directed inward.
Most of this militarization has been justified by invoking Scary Foreign Threats — primarily the Terrorist — but its prime purpose is domestic.
Police militarization is increasingly aimed at stifling journalism as well. Like the arrests of Lowery and Reilly last night, Democracy Now‘s Amy Goodman and two of her colleagues were arrested while covering the 2008 St. Paul protests. As Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (on whose board I sit) explained yesterday, militarization tactics “don’t just affect protesters, but also affect those who cover the protest. It creates an environment where police think they can disregard the law and tell reporters to stop filming, despite their legal right to do so, or fire tear gas directly at them to prevent them from doing their job. And if the rights of journalists are being trampled on, you can almost guarantee it’s even worse for those who don’t have such a platform to protect themselves.”
Ultimately, police militarization is part of a broader and truly dangerous trend: the importation of War on Terror tactics from foreign war zones onto American soil. American surveillance drones went from Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia into American cities, and it’s impossible to imagine that they won’t be followed by weaponized ones. The inhumane and oppressive conditions that prevailed at Guantanamo are matched, or exceeded, by the super-max hellholes and “Communications Management Units” now in the American prison system. And the “collect-it-all” mentality that drives NSA domestic surveillance was pioneered by Gen. Keith Alexander in Baghdad and by other generals in Afghanistan, aimed at enemy war populations.
Indeed, much of the war-like weaponry now seen in Ferguson comes from American laws, such as the so-called “Program 1033,” specifically designed to re-direct excessive Pentagon property – no longer needed as foreign wars wind down – into American cities. As the Missouri Department of Public Safety proudly explains on its website, “the 1033 Program provides surplus DoD military equipment to state and local civilian law enforcement agencies for use in counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism operations, and to enhance officer safety.”
One government newsletter - from “the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), a little known federal agency that equips police departments with surplus military gear” – boasted that “Fiscal Year 2011 was a record year in property transfers from the US military’s stockpiles to police departments around the nation.” The ACLU report notes: “the Department of Defense operates the 1033 Program through the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), whose motto is ‘from warfighter to crimefighter.’” The Justice Department has an entire program devoted to “supporting military veterans and the law enforcement agencies that hire them as our veterans seek to transition into careers as law enforcement officers.”
As part of America’s posture of Endless War, Americans have been trained to believe that everything is justified on the “battlefield” (now defined to mean “the whole world”): imprisonment without charges, kidnapping, torture, even assassination of U.S. citizens without trials. It is not hard to predict the results of importing this battlefield mentality onto American soil, aimed at American citizens: “From Warfighter to Crimefighter.” The results have been clear for those who have looked – or those who have been subject to this – for years. The events in Ferguson are, finally, forcing all Americans to watch the outcome of this process.
August 15th, 2014 by olddog
By: Louis Cammarosano
Bank Bail-ins are coming to the United States
In a speech yesterday, in Stockholn Sweden, Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve and former governor of the Bank of Israel and former chief economist at the World Bank, Stanley Fisher noted:
“As part of this approach, the United States is preparing a proposal to require systemically important banks to issue bail-inable long-term debt that will enable insolvent banks to recapitalize themselves in resolution without calling on government funding–this cushion is known as a “gone concern” buffer.”
Mr. Fisher gave no details as to whom in the United States was preparing the bail-in proposal and what “bailinable long term debt” is.
It Happened in Cyprus, But Can It Happen Here?
In spring of 2013 the failing European Bank of Cyprus performed a bail-in that required depositors to help save the bank by foregoing a large portion of the money they had deposited in the bank. In return for their forebearance, depositors were given equity shares in the failing bank.
Customers who deposit money in banks are lending that money to the bank. Depositors are in effect, unsecured creditors. If the bank fails, depositors get in line with other unsecured creditors to see how many cents on the dollar, if any, they can retrieve.
In the United States to offset this result, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) since 1933 insures bank deposits up to $250,000*. THe FDIC, however, is woefully underfunded to handle payouts in the event of a large bank failure. The new proposal is designed to allow failing banks to get back on their feet “without calling on government funding.”
Under the proposed bail-in scenario, the faiure of a “sytematically important bank” (a.k.a. “too big to fail”) will receive no government funding to stay afloat. In order to keep their casino doors open, a too big to fail bank will just call on their loyal depositors to help out by taking whatever percentage of the depositors’ money they need to stabilize the bank.
After $4 trillion of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve over the past five years, and record profits at the largest U.S. banks, it would seem that the U.S. banks should be sound and talk of bailing them in, unnecessary. Apparently, not as Mr. Fischer’s comments make clear.
With banks already paying close to zero interest on deposits and the real possibility that a depositor could actually lose money by keeping it in a too big to fail bank, what incentive do depositors have in keeping their cash in such banks?
*At the time of the Cypriot bail-in, EU depositor insurance was in place.
Smaulgld Gold Buying Guide
Smaulgld Silver Buying Guide
Janet Yellen and Negative Interest Rates
Are Banks Safe Places to Keep Your Money
Text of Stanley Fisher’s Bail -In Speech November 11, 2014
Please visit the Smaulgld Store for a larger selection of recommended Kindles, books, music, movies and other items.
Or you can support Smaulgld.com by making purchases from our affiliates or by making all your Amazon purchases through the search widget below:
*DISCLOSURE: Smaulgld provides the content on this site free of charge. If you purchase items though the links on this site, Smaulgld LLC. will be paid a commission. The prices charged are the same as they would be if you were to visit the sites directly. Please do your own research regarding the suitability of making purchases from the merchants featured on this site.
The content provided here is for informational purposes only. Making investment decisions based on information published by Smaulgld (SG), or any Internet site, is not a good idea. Accordingly, users agree to hold SG, its owner and affiliates, harmless for all information presented on the site. SG presents no warranties. SG is not responsible for any loss of data, financial loss, interruption in services, claims of libel, damages or loss from the use or inability to access SG, any linked content, or the reliance on any information on the site.
The information contained herein does not constitute legal, tax or investment advice and may be subject to correction, completion and amendment without notice. SG assumes no duty to make any such corrections or updates. As with all investments, there are associated risks and you could lose money investing. Prior to making any investment, a prospective investor should consult with its own investment, accounting, legal and tax advisers to evaluate independently the risks, consequences and suitability of that investment. SG disclaims any and all liability relating to any investor reliance on the accuracy of the information contained herein or relating to any omissions or errors and as such disclaims any and all losses that may result.
Posted in: Economics, Gold, Silver ⋅ Tagged: bail ins, depositors to lose money in banks, fed vice chairman on bank bail ins, Federal Reserve plan to bail in the banks
August 14th, 2014 by olddog
To understand the complex web of deceit aimed at luring the American people and the rest of the world into accepting a military solution which threatens the future of humanity, get your copy of the international bestseller:
“The livelihood of millions of people throughout the World is at stake. It is my sincere hope that the truth will prevail and that the understanding provided in this detailed study will serve the cause of World peace. This objective, however, can only be reached by revealing the falsehoods behind Americas “War on Terrorism” and questioning the legitimacy of the main political and military actors responsible for extensive war crimes.”
–Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
SYNOPSIS: America’s “War on Terrorism”
In this expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 bestseller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.
The this special edition, which includes twelve additional chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarization of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.
According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalization is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.
“Chossudovsky starts by dispelling the fiction that the US and Al Qaeda have been long-term adversaries. [He] also probes US oil policy, which is obviously of particular concern to George W. Bush. Chossudovsky argues that the US has a much different relationship between Russia and China than is ever indicated in the mainstream (or progressive) press. Simply put, the US is moving into the countries which neighbor Russia and China in order to plunder natural resources and expand the reach of the US Empire. Pakistans Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been playing a key role in destabilizing the region as well as offering support in other intelligence matters… War and Globalization is full of surprises, even for those of us who consider ourselves well-informed. Chossudovsky is examining the true nature of US foreign policy and arguing that the terrible events of 9/11/01 have changed little of it… Material this provocative and well-researched is ignored by the left at great peril.”
- Scott Loughrey, The Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel
“Canadian professor of economics Michel Chossudovsky contains that rare gift of a writer who can compile massive documentary evidence, then propound it in a succinct, lucid manner. In this illuminating work the host of the critically acclaimed Global Research website takes widely acclaimed and often repeated media assumptions and sharply refutes them, providing a chronology and road map behind 9-11 and related events… A large part of the book involves a necessary topic area that has been nervously glossed over by conventional American media sources for good reason; it hits too close to home and indicts the largest international energy conglomerates. The author spends much time examining the link between big oil and public policy. In terms of providing vital information, this compact volume provides more valuable information in one chapter than so many contemporary volumes do with many pages on 9-11 and related events… Chossudovsky demonstrates that the frequently repeated and fallacious Bushie shibboleths of getting Saddam before he gets us are rhetorical sallies designed to inflame public opinion by skirting around the important truths that only a few courageous authors such as himself dare reveal… Its bullseye clarity cuts through the morass of Bush verbage, daring readers to examine the pure, unvarnished truth of a nation using its military and intelligence capabilities to control the global oil market on the pretext of making the world a safer place.”
- William Hare, Florida United States
Get your copy today!
Global Research Price: US$17.00
(List price: US $24.95, Canada C$29.95)
CLICK TO BUY
August 13th, 2014 by olddog
By Joe Wright
The escalation of police brutality continues unchecked across the United States. Literally unchecked, according to the video report and sources posted below.
Citing the Bureau of Justice Statistics data collection of “Arrest-Related Deaths”, it is clear that reports involving potential police misconduct – even including deaths – are submitted on a completely voluntary basis, which has resulted in glaring holes and a long delay in those submissions that are offered.
The exclusions and submission process are telling:
The deaths of innocent bystanders, hostages, and law enforcement personnel were excluded from the scope of the ARD program. In addition, all deaths occurring in a jail or other long-term holding facility, state prison, or juvenile correctional facility were excluded from the ARD data collection. Deaths occurring in the custody of federal law enforcement agencies (i.e., FBI, DEA, or Marshals Service) were only reportable to the ARD program if the death, or incident causing the death, occurred in the presence of state or local law enforcement personnel.
Role of State Reporting Coordinators
Participation in the Arrest-Related Deaths program is voluntary, meaning neither law enforcement agencies nor states are required to submit ARD data to BJS. As such, BJS relies on the assistance of State Reporting Coordinators (SRCs) to gather records on all arrest-related deaths statewide…. (emphasis added)
When the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 was enacted, only two states conducted a statewide count of all arrest-related deaths (California and Texas, each pursuant to State law). In the remaining 48 states and the District of Columbia, the ARD program was the first attempt to perform a comprehensive count of all deaths occurring during the process of arrest. The attorneys general of California and Texas agreed to complete statewide reports of arrest-related deaths for submission to BJS. In all other jurisdictions, BJS worked with state officials to determine which agency would collect arrest-related death reports.
During reporting year 2006, a state criminal justice commission, commonly administered by the governor’s office was the most common data reporting contact (22 states), followed by the state attorney general and state police department (8 states each) (see table 1). In five states, the department of corrections took a lead role in compiling records. In over 30 states, the reporting office also served as a state criminal justice Statistical Analysis Center (SAC). (Source and full report)
As we see the current explosion taking place in Missouri – which includes a new report that police will not release the officer’s name who killed Michael Brown – and the continued fallout from the much-maligned Albuquerque Police Department (with a minimal but still revealing DoJ investigation that followed), it is clear that there is very little in place to hold law enforcement accountable.
As these departments continue to be enhanced with weapons of war and given carte blanche for no-knock death squad SWAT raids, we are likely to see a continued escalation of those with absolute power becoming corrupted absolutely.
By Jamal Andress - Newsy
For many, the killing of unarmed Missouri teen Michael Brown brings to mind other instances where officers used deadly force.
“I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe”
Law enforcement is the only non-military career in the country that offers that power, the use of deadly force, yet its practice remains un-monitored on a national scale and in most states around the country.
While the FBI keeps information annually on hate crimes, aggravated assault and officers killed in the line of duty there is no complete database tracking the police’s use of force.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has an ‘Arrest-Related Death Report’ but law offices around the country aren’t required to fill it out and a lot of them don’t. As the report notes, Georgia, Maryland and Montana didn’t submit one report for six years.
Now, in the off chance your city or state does compile the information, history says you won’t like the results.
“What we found was a pattern or practice of systemic deficiencies that have pervaded the Albuquerque Police Department for many years.”
Back in April the DOJ investigated the Albuquerque Police Department’s use of force after the APD shot and killed an armed homeless man. They found the officers “too frequently use deadly force.”
“Hey! Hey! Hey! Put the knife down!” Put the knife down! Put the knife down!
A similar investigation was conducted in Seattle, where the Department of Justice ruled that when theSeattle Police Department used force, it was done in an unconstitutional and excessive manner, nearly 20 percent of the time.
And in St. Louis, where Michael Brown was killed, a similar report from 2012. (Video via MSNBC)
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “On a straight per capita basis, St. Louis officers fired up to eight times more often than others. … From January 2007 through Sept. 30, 2011, the department cleared more than 96 percent of the shootings by officers.”
After a long night of unrest in St. Louis county, it seems the FBI will open a parallel investigation of the shooting but unlike most violence in and around the country this investigation will not be placed in a broader context or a broader conversation because the information simply isn’t there. (Video via CNN)
The video contains images from Getty Images.
To Provoke and Suppress: The Military Occupation of Ferguson Missouri
By William Norman Grigg
“Bring it, you f*****g animals! Bring it!” taunted a tonsured thug in the employ of the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department during protests over the police killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown. According to Dorian Johnson, who witnessed the killing from just a few feet away, the incident began when a still-unidentified officer hurled a similar taunt at the two of them from a patrol car.
“Get the f**k on the sidewalk!” the officer reportedly snarled at the young men from his patrol vehicle. Johnson told the officer that they had nearly arrived at his home, which was their destination. The officer then slammed on his brakes, threw his vehicle into reverse — nearly hitting the pedestrians, and growled, “What’d you say?”
According to Johnson’s account, the cop began to exit his vehicle, but his door slammed into Brown. At roughly the same time, the uniformed assailant grabbed the terrified 18-year-old by his neck. As Brown tried to escape, Johnson testifies, the officer repeatedly sneered, “I’m gonna shoot you.”
The first of several gunshots rang out a few seconds later. Brown and Johnson turned and fled. The officer fired a second shot at the fleeing victims, hitting Brown, who fell to the ground with his hands in the air, pleading: “I don’t have a gun — stop shooting!” The assailant fired several more shots, killing the unarmed teenager outside an apartment complex. His body was left about 35 feet from the vehicle, surrounded by empty casings from the officer’s gun. Brown was unarmed.
Police officials are peddling the claim that Brown supposedly “assaulted” his killer and attempted to grab the officer’s gun. Eyewitnesses, particularly Johnson, dispute that claim. Even if this were true, however, Johnson’s account would indicate that Brown acted in self-defense, seeking to disarm someone who had threatened to shoot him without cause. There is no dispute that Brown was unarmed and attempting to surrender when he was fatally shot.
A crowd that gathered at the scene of the killing grew into a protest that extended through Saturday evening, and a protest march the following day. More than 100 officers from 15 police agencies converged on the neighborhood to confront the protesters. One officer described the scene as a “war zone.” A group of violent people group hived off from the protests and attacked local businesses, including a QuickTrip convenience store. Predictably, the riot police who had assembled to “restore order” by suppressing the protests did nothing to protect private property. That role was carried out by local businessmen bearing arms in their own defense.
Many black residents of Ferguson regard themselves as living under a military occupation, subject to the whims of violent, uniformed strangers who can detain, abduct, or kill them on a whim. The reported behavior of the officer who killed Michael Brown — and the documented behavior of the officer who was caught on film taunting the protesters — would tend to validate that perception.
10:42 am on August 12, 2014Email William Norman Grigg
The Best of William Norman Grigg
August 12th, 2014 by olddog
CAFR1 NATIONAL POST
Reply by WJB to an article from Global Research -
By Walter Burien – Prior Tenant WTC1 – 1978 to 1990
I truly wish all writers would bring up the following “glaring in your face” points in every 911 article. I bring the points up as a prior tenant of WTC1 from 1978 – 80, and the following three points are the 1,2,3 knock out punch per exposure towards the true motive behind the event:
1. The WTC Towers were constructed with hundreds of tons of asbestos foam sprayed on the internal infrastructure as a fire retardant. Then asbestos for use in construction was then banned, whoops. In 1979 the WTC spent about 135 million dollars to build a special micro-particle air filtration system to capture asbestos particles as they broke down to keep exposure of the particles from the tenants. They also commissioned in 1979 a report per the cost for demolition of the towers due to the asbestos. It came back with a cost of 8 billion dollars and the report noted that is was not accounting for the billions in law suits that would arise from people saying they were exposed to the asbestos as the towers were demolished. That problem they were sitting on was resolved on 911.
2. From almost completion of the towers it was a “no-fly” zone. Only commercial aircraft at a high altitude were allowed to fly over on a pr-designated flight path. Any private plane that came to close, an intercept was launched from one of the three surrounding military bases. If the plane did not back off as instructed by the intercept, it could be taken down by the intercepts. Any commercial airplane that flew off course, did not respond, could be shot down with an order to do so from any one of the base commanders. Thousands of military sorties were run per threats, potential threats, or practice drills from the opening of the towers. Port Authority, the owners of the WTC complex bragged in their monthly tenant news letter that the response time from threat alert to military intercept in the air was less than four minutes. The only day in an exemplary history of protecting the towers for over 25-years from in the air threats, that an intercept was not launched from not just one reported threat in the air but four known threats in the air? That day was 911. On that day was the only day a firm stand-down order was given. When I saw that on 911, as a prior tenant, I knew with great certainty they were allowing this to happen.
3. The Port Authority starting in 1978, now knowing about the asbestos situation and in a separate matter that due to the massive flat surfaces of the towers, if a level 4 or 5 hurricane hit with sustained winds of 195 to 210 MPH hitting those flat surfaces, the towers could not withstand the massive millions of metric tons of directional wind force, and would go down. The tower’s ratings were designed to handle “gusts” up to 165 MPH. Port Authority in 1978 started diligently pushing to sell the WTC complex. No matter how hard they tried with any and all potential world buyers, no takers. Then in 1999 / 2000, in steps Larry Silverstein, a joint US and Israeli citizen, who negotiates a 99-year lease on the WTC complex with the total lease having a cost of 3.5 billion dollars and requiring “monthly” payments of somewhere around 100 million dollars monthly. The contract was signed for the lease and Silverstein effectively was now the new owner by lease of the WTC complex. The complex had no insurance for terrorism events, so one of the first things Silverstein did was put out a bid to the insurance companies for a policy coverage that included a “double indemnity” clause on the 3.5 billion dollar lease, so total coverage would be 7 billion dollars. It took several months for a group of insurance companies to come together to write the policy. When the final large insurance company that entered finalized the policy, in so many words, the ink was not even dry yet on the policy and down go the towers, and in goes Silverstein’s claim for payment under the policy of 7 billion dollars noting the double indemnity clause that there were “two” acts of terrorism. Poof, there goes the problem of the asbestos, flat surfaces of the towers in the event of a level 4+ hurricane, the excuse initiated and promoted for the largest military action in recent history, and by the way the dates and targets for that military action were planed in advance two-years prior to 911. The Afghanistan and then Iraqi “Shock and Awl” hit took place almost to the day as planned well in advance before 911.
SUB NOTE: I think we all remember the TV News video shot they played over and over again in the first three days after 911 of a bunch of mid-eastern types noted as Arabs that were celebrating and popping bottles of champagne on a rooftop from Fort Lee, NJ overlooking the burning towers shortly after being hit. Clear exuberance was being shown due to the event by one and all on that rooftop as they toasted their champagne glasses. Well, the press immediately pulled that segment when it was learned that all on that rooftop celebrating were Israeli Nationals, celebrating due to the fact that they knew based on the event, the US Military would now start the planned event of decimating Israel’s presumed neighboring enemies in the middle east. I bet most Americans never knew what the reality was behind that video clip broadcasted and then pulled. Additionally, the towers were designed where the center “steel core” would act as a guide for collapsing floors in the event of catastrophic failure. By design, the floors would pancake down around the center steel core protecting surrounding buildings but in no event would the center steel core fail. When I saw the center steel core “coming down” with the collapsing floors, there was no question in my mind that pr-placed demolitions on the center steel core was the only plausibility for that to happen. Even “if” as they said in the promoted story line heat from fires on the impacted floors caused the center steel core to fail, then the upper intact steel core would have toppled over, and the lower unaffected would have been left standing. NO QUESTION WHAT-SO-EVER demolition.. The 3000 911-archetcts for accountability concur.
The top individuals controlling a large and corrupted government view the general populace as “useful idiots”. Their well planned “in advance” story line towards one of the most corrupt acts in history, 911, is designed specifically for the uninformed by the perpetrators intent, useful idiots to parrot. Including the selected date and logo used: 911, a well know call for emergency action.
Will there ever be serious and consequential accountability levied on the inside players that pulled off 911 and the subsequent devastation that took place in its aftermath? I sure as hell hope so! The clock is ticking and so far those responsible have been laughing their asses off all the way down to the bank over the last decade without any or true consequence for their acts..
PS: The “Poster Boy’s” name, Bin Laden was mentioned by CNN and other Media networks as the claimed perpetrator starting “22 minutes” into the event. Must be some very clairvoyant news reporters out there, but then in reality they mostly are just following a pr-drafted script given to the
Please share my comments with one and all. If you have a website or news letter please publish.
Walter Burien – CAFR1.com – Prior Tenant WTC1 – 1978/1980
P. O. Box 2112
Saint Johns, AZ 85936
Tel. (928) 458-5854