A Nation Trapped By Ambulance Chasers

Last week it was America that suffered a self-inflicted wound. This week it was Britain.The al-Sweady inquiry was a five year, £31 million judge-led inquiry into a single incident involving British troops in Iraq. Ten years ago, after a particularly bloody battle, British troops took a number of Iraqi insurgents (from the Mahdi army) into custody. The men were questioned and subsequently released.

But enter two firms of lawyers who should evermore stand as the absolute definition of ‘ambulance chasers’ – were there any actual ambulance to have chased in this case. But there was not, because nobody was even harmed. Nevertheless the firms ‘Public Interest Lawyers’ and ‘Leigh Day & Co’ sought out, instigated and outrageously prolonged a full-scale legal inquiry into the events. The Iraqis who had been detained claimed that British troops had murdered, mutilated and tortured the detainees in their care. The two firms acting on behalf of these men even failed – among other things – to declare until more than four years into the inquiry documents showing that the men making the claims were insurgent fighters. They pretended they were innocent civilians. In this way, among many others, the lawyers managed to continue to rack up their fees even as the reputations of British soldiers were dragged through the mud.

This week, after gathering more than 600 witness statements and hearing oral evidence from almost 300 people, came to a close. It found that the claims of the Iraqis were ‘Wholly and entirely without merit or justification.’ Indeed the allegations were, the presiding judge found, the product of “deliberate and calculated lies”.

Reaction to the verdict of the inquiry was predictable. The troops who had had to live with 10 years of grotesque allegations hanging over them and their families, were first relieved and then justifiably angry that they had ever been put through this ordeal. But the predictions of parts of the press was equally predictable. The Guardian and the Independent – to name just two papers – seemed positively disappointed by the result. It seemed not just to be their expectation but their hope that our nation’s troops would be found guilty of war crimes. And so they ran front-page headlines focussing on the fact that there were small criticisms in the report relating to prisoner care (late delivery of a meal and a detainee being ‘breathed on’ among them). Thus these papers continued to satisfy what they appear to believe is an insatiable public thirst for stories of wrong-doing on our own side.

So many aspects of this story are terrible: the mistreatment of our soldiers, the waste of public money, the outrageous behaviour of some of these lawyers and an apparent willingness to always believe the worst of our own soldiers. But some good should come of it. And perhaps it could be a moment for political unity. These outrageous allegations were made about a war begun under a Labour government. Labour MPs and others who have gone through all this see as clearly as anyone could the problems in our system which have given rise to these outrageous proceedings. Meanwhile, announcing the findings of the inquiry in the Commons this week the Defence Minister Michael Fallon was rightly and visibly angry that the charges had ever come to this. If good is to come from this it should be a serious discussion between the two main parties not just to recognise what went wrong with al-Sweady, but to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of British soldiers on patrol in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan. Photo: Reuters.

Boston Marathon jihad murderer appears in court for the first time since 2013

What a bizarre scene. There is no doubt that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is guilty. He is captured on video at the scene, he took evidence of his involvement back to his college dorm, he wrote about the bombings and his role in them on the side of the boat in which he was hiding. And yet protesters still showed up to defend him. When it comes to Islamic jihad terror, some people cannot and will not shake the propagandistic notion that Muslims are always and ever victims, no matter how many bloodied, lifeless bodies they leave in their wake.

“Tsarnaev appears in court for 1st time since 2013,” by Denise Lavioe, Associated Press, December 17, 2014:

BOSTON (AP) — Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev returned to court Thursday for the first time since he was arraigned in July 2013, and he received a shout of encouragement from the mother-in-law of a man who was shot and killed while being questioned by law enforcement after the bombings.

Security was tight at the federal courthouse in Boston for Tsarnaev’s final pretrial conference. Tensions ran high, and one bombing victim had a testy exchange with protesters outside.

During the brief court hearing, U.S. District Court George O’Toole Jr. made no rulings, saying he would rule in writing on pending motions, including the defense’s latest push to move the trial out of Boston.

David Bruck, one of Tsarnaev’s lawyers, told the judge that the defense plans to file a motion to delay the trial, which is now scheduled to begin on Jan. 5 with jury selection. Bruck did not say how long of a delay the defense will seek.

At one point, the mother-in-law of Ibragim Todashev called out to Tsarnaev in Russian in the courtroom. Elena Teyer said she told him: “We pray for you. Be strong, my son. We know you are innocent.”

Later, in English, she yelled to the law enforcement officers escorting her out of the room: “Stop killing innocent people. Stop killing innocent boys.”

Tsarnaev never flinched or acknowledged the shouts.

Three people were killed and more than 260 were injured when two bombs exploded near the finish line of the April 2013 marathon. Tsarnaev, who has pleaded not guilty to 30 federal charges, faces the possibility of the death penalty if he is convicted.

Tsarnaev, 21, wore a black sweater and gray trousers and had a scruffy beard and a curly hairstyle similar to the one seen in earlier photos. He smiled to his attorneys and one patted him on the arm.

The courtroom was packed with FBI agents, police who worked on the case and more than a dozen survivors and family members.

Outside the courthouse, a man who lost his right leg in the bombings had a testy exchange with a small group of protesters holding signs supporting Tsarnaev and questioning whether authorities have proof that he is responsible for the bombings.

Marc Fucarile held up his prosthetic leg and moved it back and forth toward the demonstrators, saying: “That’s proof right there.”

One of the demonstrators said to Fucarile: “You should care that they get the right guy.”

Fucarile replied: “Get a life, lady. Go to work.”

At his last court appearance 17 months ago, Tsarnaev still bore signs of the bloody standoff with police that led to his capture and the death of his older brother, Tamerlan. His left arm was in a cast, his face was swollen and he appeared to have a jaw injury. In court Thursday, he had no visible injuries.

Tsarnaev’s trial is expected to last several months, and seating a jury alone could take several weeks to a month.

Judge O’Toole questioned Tsarnaev about whether he had waived his right to appear at previous hearings. Tsarnaev answered in a clear voice: “Yes, sir.”

Asked by the judge if he believes his lawyers had acted in his best interests, he said: “Very much.”

Earlier this month, Tsarnaev’s lawyers argued anew that “emotionally charged” media coverage and the widespread impact of the attacks have made it impossible for him to get a fair trial in Massachusetts….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State releases list of “Qur’anic punishments”

Psaki: Comedy dropped by Sony after North Korea threats totally different from Muhammad film slammed by State Department

UK: Muslims kept slave workers in squalid conditions

Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party: Islam should rule, not be ruled

Watch this video and ask: What do you see?

Watch this seven second video of an actual pursuit by Chicago Police Department Detectives of an alleged criminal. The video you will be watching was taken in real time by a police officer videographer who was also in harm’s way as he trained a camera on the suspect and was standing next to and slightly behind one of the police detectives.

PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO NOW – DO NOT READ BELOW UNTIL YOU WATCH THE VIDEO:

What did you see? Officers pursued a suspect and upon closing on him ordered him to put an assault rifle down on the ground. Did you see this happen? Did you see the assault rifle? The suspect appears to be complying with the officer’s demand, and then suddenly officers shoot the male dropping him instantly. Did you see the same thing?

I would like you to watch the video again so you might have a slight better idea of what it is like being a police officer on the street and having to make a split second decision with life changing consequences. Now watch the video again and pay attention to the suspect’s right hand as he places the rifle down with his left hand.

What you don’t see by facing the suspect face-to-face, but the Police Detective behind the suspect does see, is the suspect pulling a hidden handgun from his rear pants with his right hand. The second officer yells “Gun!” before firing. Watch as the suspect goes down…the handgun is still in his right hand.

What you think you see does not always tell the truth. Police Officers are trained, and continue to practice, making split second decisions to prepare for situations just like you saw. There are no excuses for a “bad cop” or one that abuses his/her authority or fails to protect the citizens he is sworn to help, as well as to bring enforcement of the law. But equally, an officer faces immediate threats others only comment about, and from a great safe distance after the fact.

Next time you see an officer let him or her know you watched the above video, and viewing it has made you have a greater appreciation for how instantly their life can be challenged and changed.

A Natural Born Citizen is a True Citizen

Despite numerous efforts by our illustrious legal and academic professionals to use precedence and 1946 Rules of Procedure to alter or abolish the Natural Born Citizen requirement for the Oval Office found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, using false history and tortured legal interpretations of 14th Amendment laws and cases pertaining to naturalized citizens, to avoid the need to amend in order to actually alter, the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen remains exactly as it was when our Founders chose the status as a requirement for high office in 1787.

In short, the term Natural Born Citizen is synonymous with the term “True Citizen.” Its point of origin is very well documented, as is the true meaning of the term and even the purpose should be obvious to every thinking individual with at least third grade reading and comprehension skills.

HOW IT CAME TO BE IN OUR CONSTITUTION

  • Our early settlers had left England and other parts of Europe because those countries had already experienced a shift away from Natural Law concepts to Common Law concepts, wherein men were making laws that infringed upon the Natural Rights of the people, not the least of which was religious persecution.
  • Our very first “founding document” by our earliest settlers was the Mayflower Compact. An effort to establish the New World on Natural Law concepts and the Natural Rights of a free people.
  • By 1774, there was a growing division between members of the original 13 colonies and England due to Common Law statutes which again, were infringing upon the Natural Rights of settlers in the New World. It was about much more than a tax on Tea. This was the reason for our Founders split from British Common Law rule that resulted in the Revolutionary War to declare our independence from British rule and establish a new independent sovereign nation. The First Continental Congress was convened by the colonies to begin the separation with Britain and form a sovereign nation of our own, one that would be based upon Natural Law and Natural Rights.
  • In April of 1775, the Revolutionary War had begun, as Britain attempted to force its Common Law statutes on the 13 colonies by sending troops to the New World, infringing upon the Natural Rights of our early citizens.
  • The Second Continental Congress convened in 1775, to begin the work that would result in the writing of our Declaration of Independence, which Jefferson wrote in just 17 days, once commissioned with the task.
  • In October of 1775, Benjamin Franklin received three (3) copies of The Law of Nations from Charles W.F. Dumas. Dumas was a “person of letters” aka a well-read man, he was a Swiss publisher. He was also a Swiss diplomat to America at the time, on behalf of the Swiss government.
  • Franklin placed one of the three copies of The Law of Nations in the New York Library, kept a copy for himself and gave the third copy to Thomas Jefferson, as Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence.
  • On December 9, 1775, Franklin wrote a letter of thanks to Dumas, stating as follows:

“It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary to frequently consult the Law of Nations.”

  • On July 4, 1776, the 13 colonies ratified the Declaration of Independence, in which the preamble states as follows:
  • “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” – You can easily see that the Founders were entirely focused on creating a new sovereign independent nation governed by The Laws of Nature, not British Common Law. Their understanding of Natural Law and Natural Rights came from The Law of Nations, which Dumas had sent to Franklin during the founding period of the nation.
  • On July 25, 1787, Founder John Jay recommended in a letter to members of the Constitutional Convention that the term “Natural Born Citizen” (synonymous with True Citizen) be placed in Article II as a requirement for the Office of President and Commander-in-Chief, stating that only a Natural Born Citizen of the United States would be eligible for high office. Members of the Constitutional Convention agreed, adding the condition to the document that would be ratified less than two months later.
  • In September of 1787, the ratified U.S. Constitution included a Natural Law term Natural Born Citizen, synonymous with the term “True Citizen,” as a condition for access to the Oval Office, in Article II. You can also find in Article I, the enumerated power of Congress to enforce The Law of Nations, which means enforce all Rights under Natural Law as defined in The Law of Nations.
  • Since then, there has been no amendment altering the original definition of Natural Law or Natural Born Citizen, nor has there been any amendment removing the Natural Born Citizen requirement for the Oval Office in Article II.
  • On eight separate occasions, between 2004 and 2008, members of Congress proposed altering or eliminating the Natural Born Citizen requirement in Article II, failing in each of those attempts.
  • To legally alter anything in the Constitution, there must be an amendment to the Constitution and that amendment must be very specific in wording, as to what is being changed, altered or removed. The amendment itself must also be in perpetuation of the original context and intent of the Constitution, and cannot violate the original text or intent, or the measure itself becomes “unconstitutional.”
  • As a result, the term Natural Born Citizen means exactly the same thing it meant when the Founders made it a condition for access to the Oval Office in September of 1787.
  • Upon being elected the First President of the new United States in 1789 under the new constitution, on October 5, 1789, George Washington withdrew the one copy of The Law of Nations from the library where Franklin had placed it in 1775, as Washington explained in his notes, in order to learn the foundations upon which the new system of government had been formed and in order to properly govern under those concepts in accordance with the Founders intent under the constitution.
  • Washington never returned that copy of the book to the library. 221 years later, the staff of Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate learned of this situation and replaced the book at the New York Library. No effort to collect the estimated $300,000 in late fees was made.
  • On June 15, 1804, the 12th Amendment clarified that the same Natural Born Citizen and all other Article II requirements for the Presidency applies to the Vice Presidency, as the Vice President may succeed the President to the Oval Office.

WHY IT WAS PLACED IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS

The Founders reasoning for the Natural Born Citizen requirement in Article II is self-evident in the history of how it came to exist in our founding documents. In his letter to the Constitutional Convention, requesting the Natural Born Citizen be added as a requirement for high office under Article II, Jay explained his reasoning…

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” – John Jay letter dated July 25, 1787

The reasoning of our Founders or the “original intent” of our Founders was a matter of National Security. In this case, it pertained to the highest and most powerful political office in our new nation, the office of Commander-in-Chief, or President of the United States.

The Founders reasoning and intent was clearly to prevent anyone with natural foreign loyalties or entanglements due to dual, divided or foreign citizenship, from ever holding the office of Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, as stated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, “No person except a natural born citizen, – shall be eligible to the office of President;” (or Vice President as of Amendment XII)

The section which states “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” pertains only to the Founders themselves, as they were all “citizens” of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, but none of them were “natural born Citizens” at the adoption of the Constitution.

HOW THE LAW OF NATIONS DEFINES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

Many have argued that the U.S. Constitution does not define the term natural born Citizen. Of course, the U.S. Constitution, unlike most legal documents, does not have a definitions section at all. None of the words that appear in the Constitution have a definition attached to them.

This is due to the fact that the U.S. Constitution was not written in legal-ease, but rather in basic simple common English, that any person able to read could easily comprehend, avoiding any need for citizens to rely upon the legal interpretations of men to understand their basic Natural Rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The ethical research of any subject requires an honest effort to seek truth, a complete study of all available information, when possible, a reliance on first source evidence, as opposed to second hand information or third party opinions which might be socially or politically motivated, and a recognition of and respect for the point of origin.

As the term was borrowed from Natural Law as defined by Emmerich De Vattel in the Law of Nations, we must refer to Chapter XIX Sections 212-220 of Book I to glean the true meaning of the term natural born Citizen, as it was used and intended by the Founders in 1787.

Contrary to the popular belief of many today who have not yet completed their research on the subject, Vattel did not define natural born Citizen in one sentence, or even one paragraph. Vattel spent nine sections of Chapter XIX defining natural born Citizen, and he makes it very clear that the term is synonymous with the term “True Citizen.”

Close and complete examination of Chapter XIX Sections 212-220 will eliminate all doubts and questions concerning the true definition of natural born Citizen, aka True Citizen. Upon inspection of all related sections, we find that Vattel has a common thread throughout concerning the meaning of natural born Citizen, or True Citizen. The following excerpts represent that common thread in order of appearance… the common thread in bold for ease of identification purposes.

  1. “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” – Section 212
  2. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” – Section 212
  3. “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” – Section 212
  4. “These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers;” Section 213 pertaining to “inhabitants” or foreigners allowed by the state to settle and stay in the country.
  5. “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. (59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular,” – Section 215 pertaining to children of citizens born abroad, which refers back to Section 212.
  6. The natural, or original settlement, is that which we acquire by birth, in the place where our father has his;” – Section 218 pertaining to the settlements of naturals…
  7. “We have observed above (§ 212), that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members.But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth.” – Section 220 again refers back to Section 212, when attaching the natural rights of an individual to the natural birth father as it pertains to the individual right to withdraw from society once of legal age.

As you can see, a complete study of how the Law of Nations addresses natural born Citizen, True Citizen, is consistent in attaching Natural Birth Right Citizenship to the natural birth father.

Some ask, what about the mother?

As you can see, the mother is not mentioned as a means of passing natural born Citizenship to the child. Only the father is mentioned. Why?

In U.S. Law governing naturalization under the 14th Amendment, a mother can pass basic citizenship to the child at birth, but not natural born Citizenship under Natural Law. As a result, “These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages.”

In cases of married parents, all Natural Rights follow the blood of the father, including that of the family name, or surname, the family crest, family lineage and all natural rights of inheritance, including the natural right to inherit the citizenship of the father at birth by tacit consent, without any naturalization process.

This is because under the laws of marriage, two people become one entity, the father being the dominant legal figure within that union. The father is held most responsible for the actions of his family, to include his wife and his children.

Recent efforts, again by our illustrious legal and academic professionals, to alter even the age old definition of marriage have led to much anxiety and confusion over this very basic precept. The push for “equality” between genders and shifting gender roles have very much complicated this matter and frustrated many.

When the mother is not married, the condition of the natural birth father may or may not be known or documented.

However, when properly and ethically interpreting a document which is 227 years old, the definitions in force at the time the terms were used is the only correct definition, no matter how anyone feels about those definitions.

Our Constitution is written in stone, in the sense that it cannot be altered at all other than by amendment process. It does live and breathe, but only to the degree that society sees fit to amend the original Articles via the amendment process to meet with modern times. The amendment process was intentionally made very cumbersome to prevent people from altering our foundations of freedom and liberty on a whim for light or transient purposes.

The mere fact that some don’t like it does nothing to change it. Even court opinions, or congressional legislation, or executive orders do not have the power to constitutionally alter anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or supersede them in law. Such efforts are all “unconstitutional” on their face.

INALIENABLE NATURAL LAW

It is not possible to change a condition which exists in nature. Our Founders wisely chose Natural Rights under Natural Law as the foundation for everything they created, because the Laws of Nature are constant, they are inalienable, they are beyond the power of man to regulate.

I was recently asked why I thought The Law of Nations has never been updated for modern use since its publication in the mid-1700s…. I answered… Because the Laws of Nature never change.

Some have no clue what the Laws of Nature are or how they affect their daily lives, much less why our Founders based everything upon these Laws. So, I often put the subject in terms that people can relate to by using the example of gravity, another law of nature.

Men can dislike, legislate against, rule against in the courts or order from existence from the Oval Office, gravity. The very best of scientists have never been able to alter or abolish gravity. At best, they have only been able to temporarily escape the effects of gravity. Yet sooner or later, what goes up will still come down. And that’s because gravity, like natural born Citizen, is a condition which exists in nature and it is inalienable by men.

Because our Founders had no trust in the pursuits of men in power, they entrusted everything to the Laws of Nature, and provided in our Founding documents that our Rights are all Natural Rights, Rights that exist in Nature, of Nature’s God, not of men easily manipulated via Common Law processes.

By 1823, Thomas Jefferson among other Founders had already witnessed the destructive nature of an unbridled judiciary, stating as follows:

“At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.”

WHY DON’T MODERN LAWYERS KNOW THIS?

In short, it’s because they do not want to know it and even more importantly, they do not want you to know it…

The Rules of Procedure “unconstitutionally” installed in the U.S. Justice system in 1946 made it possible for lawyers to alter or abolish Natural Rights in their Common Law by simply legislating against them, ruling them out of existence from the bench, or ordering them out of force from the Executive Branch.

Since then, American Law Schools have not taught Natural Law of Constitutional Law. Instead, they have focused on how to infringe upon the Natural Rights of every American by using precedence and procedure found only in Common Law. They had granted themselves the power to change law, the Constitution and the Bill of Natural Rights, by merely “setting a new precedent” or blocking public access to the proper justice system via “procedures of the courts.”

As a result, very few if any lawyers alive today know any of the truths presented in this essay on the subject of Natural Law and natural born. Further, even fewer want to know these truths and almost none of them want the American people to know this historic truth.

However, the truth exists… and it will not vanish, so long as the people grasp it, protect it and preserve it. They must, as the information provided herein is much greater than the subject of who can and cannot hold the office of President…

It is the Foundation of freedom and liberty, without which, the people of the United States will possess neither.

I have spent so much time and effort researching and writing on this subject for one single reason… I know that if the American people cannot get this one thing right, there is no chance that they will get anything else right in their efforts to defend the Constitution and regain control of their stolen Republic.

This is the lynch pin to everything. If the American people can get this one issue right and act swiftly to enforce it, they can save their country. If they cannot get this right, they will get nothing else right…

Protesting Law and Order

I doubt there was ever a time in America, pre-Revolution and since, that race was not an issue. It was for the framers of the Constitution who, in order to get the southern colonies to accept it, included in Article Two that, for the purpose of taxation, slaves were to be identified as only “three-fifths” of being a person. In Section 9, it was agreed that the issue of slavery was not to be addressed until 1808, but “a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”

Protesting something, anything, is as American as the flag. After fighting a Revolution for six years to rid themselves of a British monarch and his control of the colonies, Americans embraced the right to protest as part of their definition of liberty and freedom. By 1861 the protests against slavery had so divided the nation a Civil War had to be fought. In 1870, the 15th Amendment enfranchised former slaves with the right to vote, but Congress would wait until 1920 to extend the same right to women!

Having lived through the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, the assassinations of President Kennedy, his brother Robert who was the Attorney General, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I concluded that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had “solved” the issues that had afflicted blacks in America. I was wrong.

The protests that occurred in the wake of grand jury decisions not to indict a police officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, or another group of police officers whose arrest of Eric Garner led to his death in Staten Island, New York are different only because they swiftly went from local to national. The initial Ferguson protests immediately descended into looting and arson. The Garner protests attracted large crowds that disrupted traffic and interfered with consumers in some shopping outlets. It seems to have gone unnoticed that large numbers of those in the latter protests were white.

The protests were magnified by the involvement of the President and the Attorney General who, while urging that violence be avoided, told the protesters to “stay the course.” Had either Michael Brown or Eric Garner obeyed the law, they would be alive. Brown had committed a robbery just prior to his attack on Officer Darren Wilson and Garner had a long history of arrests and was engaged in a minor offense of selling cigarettes.

With the exception of those who joined the protests, white America is deeply at odds with black America. There are serious differences that include issues involving crime rates, school dropout rates, numbers of illegitimate or aborted children, single parent families, and other comparable social differences between the two racial groups.

As the protests continued, Rasmussen Reports noted that “Many had high hopes that the election of the nation’s first black President would help heal our racial wounds, but just eight percent (8%) think race relations in America are better since Barack Obama become President in 2009. That’s something that blacks, whites, and other minority Americans agree on.” Put another way, ninety-two (92%) agree there has been no improvement in race relations.

The division between the way white and black Americans view the nation is quite dramatic. Rasmussen found that “while 54% of whites think the U.S. justice system is fair to blacks, 84% of black voters consider the justice system unfair to them.” The protests are no doubt rooted in the finding that “eighty-two percent (82%) of black voters think most black Americans receive unfair treatment from the police. White voters by a 56% to 30% margin don’t believe that’s true.”

Need it be said that Rasmussen found that “Black voters also continue to overwhelmingly approve of the job Obama is doing as President, while most whites disapprove.” The irony of this is reflected in the numbers of blacks who are school dropouts, unemployed or in our nation’s prisons. Obama’s six years in office have not demonstrated much improvement in the lives of many black Americans.

The results of the midterm elections are testimony that voters want “change” that is very different from Obama’s promised “transformation” of America. They have run out of the “hope” he promised when elected.

Rasmussen reports that “Nearly half of voters want Congress to stop the President’s new plan to protect up to five million illegal immigrants from deportation. Americans rate their citizenship highly and aren’t keen on putting many of those here illegally on the path to citizenship” and “many voters expect the new Republican Congress to repeal Obamacare.”

I don’t expect race relations in America to improve much so long as black Americans who comprise 13% of the population continue to demand something different from “equal justice” when decisions are rendered with which they disagree. Marching for “justice” ignores the fact that we have a very good justice and law enforcement system in America.

I worry that too many Americans fail to respect the police who put their lives on the line to protect them. They are not the enemy. The criminals are.

Being black or a member of any minority comes with the option to regard oneself as a victim, but those who stay in school, get a job, work hard, get married, and raise a family are not victims. They are proof that the American dream is real and can be achieved.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Tells BET: Racism ‘Deeply Rooted’ in U.S.

Michael Brown: A Bully embraced by Anti-Bullying Liberals?

Open Letter to the Reverend Al Sharpton

Dear Al Sharpton,

I can understand, what with the price of gas being so low that you can now afford to fill up plenty of gas containers and keep throwing them onto the fires being stirred up by your race baiting all over the USA. Now I am not sure what sort of a reverend you are, but in my church we don’t go around inciting chaos and hate against anyone.

The police officers in all department’s across this nation put their lives on the line for us all daily and we are sick and tired of tax evaders like you running your mouth trying to install hate and discontent among the masses. Now I don’t care if you hang out with that President Obama. It is your record that matters. Here are just a few examples of your race bating:

In 1987 you threw gas onto fire and disrespected the brave police officers in the Tawana Brawley case. Brawley, an African American teenager, claimed that she was raped by a group of white men—some of whom were allegedly police officers. The case was later dismissed by a grand jury, which reportedly concluded that the teenager had made up the story. But this came after months of media frenzy around the case, largely encouraged by you. In fact you were sued by the district attorney working the case for making slanderous remarks. You sir were found guilty and you were fined for your comments. In 1990 you faced more charges when you were tried and acquitted of stealing from the NYM. Your quite a nefarious character Al. You claim to represent the black community, how about you start representing all Americans no just some blacks.

You can’t even let an man alone who was being robbed by four of your brothers on a subway in New York. Bernhard Goetz shot four African-American men on a New York City Subway train in Manhattan on December 22, 1984, when they approached him and tried to rob him. At his trial Goetz was cleared of all charges except for carrying an unlicensed firearm. Al, instead of marching for more gun rights for self defense in New York under the Second Amendment you led several marches protesting what you saw as the weak prosecution of the case. You said Goetz’s actions were racist and you requested a federal civil rights investigation. A federal investigation concluded the shooting was due to an attempted robbery by four black men and not race.

In 2001 you were jailed for 90 days on trespassing charges while protesting against U.S. military target practice exercises in Puerto Rico near a United States Navy bombing site. You were held in a Puerto Rican lockup for two days and then imprisoned at Metropolitan Detention Center, Brooklyn on May 25, 2001, and you had the Federal Bureau of Prisons ID# 21458-069. You were was released on August 17, 2001. So why where you protesting the U.S. Navy and my brothers in arms Al? Are you some kind of anti-military sympathizer?

20110818-al_sharpton

Crown Heights Riots. Al Sharpton center.

During the Crown Heights Riots, you were seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions by making remarks that included “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house”. You once again showed that you are race baiter. There are federal laws that protect us from people like you.

You were quoted as saying to an audience at Kean College in 1994 that, “White folks was in caves while we was building empires…. really? Are you trying to build good relations or start a race war? Just asking. You don’t even like Mormons and made this comment about Mitt Romney running for President. “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation.

On May 9, 2008 the Associated Press reported that your so called businesses owed almost $1.5 million in unpaid taxes and penalties. You owed $931,000 in federal income tax and $366,000 to New York, and your for-profit company, Rev. Al Communications, owed another $176,000 to the state. Why can’t you pay your taxes like other law abiding Americans? Most folks go to jail for this, so why are you still a free man?

Finally, in 2009 the Federal Election Commission announced it had levied a fine of $285,000 against your 2004 presidential campaign for breaking campaign finance rules during your presidential run.

Al you are a bad guy, a tax evader and a race baiter. You just like to stir the pot and throw lighted matches onto gasoline cans so long as its against whites, Jews or Mormons. Stand down dude. You are part of the problem. Start being an American instead of an Obama collectivist sympathizer.

I for one support and salute the brave police officers all over this country that stand up like real Americans and have the courage protect us. Unlike people like you.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Most Americans See Race Relations Worsening Since Obama’s Election

NYPD Cops Warned Militant Group Black Guerilla Family ‘Preparing to Shoot On-Duty Police Officers’

MSNBC hostess gets roasted for arguing ‘arson and looting’ aren’t really violent

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Al Sharpton with President Obama is courtesy of FrontPage Magazine.

James O’Keefe on Government Power — Corruption — Arrogance

James O’Keefe exposes Department of Justice corruption in the Louisiana U.S. Attorney Office and the DOJ Civil Rights Division Regarding Landrieu, Danziger Bridge and other cases.

Project Veritas Action investigates the U.S. Department of Justice and their Civil Rights Division that has been involved in “grotesque” prosecutorial misconduct in cases against law enforcement. The same division, and even the attorney involved in past misconduct, is now investigating the cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT BELOW:

VO #1: Was Senator Mary Landrieu’s connections to the U. S. Attorney’s office the reason I was so aggressively prosecuted five years ago?

(pause)

In light of new revelations…Ethical Conduct Complaints have been filed with the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board. The complaints were filed against former Assistant U.S. Attorney Jan Mann, Salvatore Perricone and the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District James B. Letten. An ethics complaint was also filed with the Justice Department against Karla Dobinski.

Letten: Listen to me, pay attention to me, listen to me, listen to me you hobbits. You are less than I can ever tell you.

VO #2: This is Former U. S. Attorney James Letten on the sidewalk in front of the Tulane University law School where he is an assistant Dean.

Letten: blah blah blah…(throws book at James)

VO #3: This wasn’t the first time Jim Letten has thrown the book at me. On January 25th, 2010, I was arrested with three colleagues by the FBI and
charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony. A charge that was well beyond the facts of the case.

Mike Madigan: It seemed to be an enormous overreaction to what happened. And relatively soon within the first couple of days, the prosecutors knew that this was not any terrorist activity and they knew that it was a politically related mater having to do with Senator Landrieu.

O’Keefe: We actually showed our real drivers licenses, each and every one of us./// I walked up to Senator Landrieu’s door, it was open, anyone could walk in, it was business hours. And I sat down on the couch. And then I said, and this was in the original FBI affidavit, I said to the secretary, I said, “I’m waiting for somebody.”

Letten: I didn’t prosecute your case asshole. I recused. I recused from your case…

VO #4: Letten did recuse himself but left the prosecution of the case to his number two Jan Mann. Mann’s personal connections to Mary Landrieu were well known, going back to when the two went to school together. My attorney, Mike Madigan believed that Letten’s entire office should have recused itself, primarily because of relationships and personal connections with Senator Landrieu.

Madigan: We looked at what remained as the leadership at that point in time and we learned quickly on that Senator Landrieu’s brother, who I believe the name was Maurice, was part of the leadership of that office with Jan Mann.

VO #5: Madigan wrote a strong letter to the Justice Department asking for the case to be moved to another jurisdiction but that didn’t happen. Jan Mann continued to press the case, in spite of the outrageousness of the charges.

Madigan: We thought it was a very large overreach to be using that statute in the first place particularly in light of the fact that it was obviously designed for terrorist activity and I think the prosecutors knew pretty soon on that that was not the case.

VO #6: The facts of the case were pretty straightforward if slightly ridiculous. In January of 2010, Senator Landrieu’s support of Obamacare led Louisiana voters to flood her office with complaints. The plan was to make an undercover video.

O’Keefe: United States Senator Mary Landrieu had said her phones were jammed. We thought it would be revelatory and ironic and funny and youtube worthy if we caught her staffers on tape making derogatory comments about the tea party. “Oh, let’s just shut those phones down so those tea party people can’t get through to us.”

VO #7: Two of the participants were wearing hard hats and reflective vests purchased that morning at a hardware store.

O’Keefe: We looked absurd, we looked like the Village People. In fact, they were dressed so absurdly that one of the secretaries laughed and said they obviously aren’t telephone repair people.

VO #8: No one was fooled and someone called the FBI. All four of those arrested faced felony charges…that Mike Madigan says, made no sense at all.
Mike Madigan: There was no criminal intent, there was no effort to commit a felony, no evidence whatsoever.

VO #9: But Assistant U. S. Attorney Jan Mann’s prosecution was relentless. And perhaps even unethical. Privileged…client-attorney emails were somehow released to the press just weeks after the arrest.

Madigan: The only place that that could have happened from was from the seizure of James computer by the government./// Well we thought it was extremely unprofessional, inappropriate if not criminal action.

VO #10: Madigan asked Mann to investigate the leaks but his letter went unanswered. It now seems pretty evident that there were a lot of unethical activities going on in the U.S Attorney’s office. Last year, five New Orleans police officers who had been convicted for a deadly shooting had their convictions overturned.

MSNBC News: In a 129 page ruling a federal judge overturned the convictions citing witness coercion, inconsistent testimony and a scandal in which at least three government attorneys were revealed to have posted comments about the case on line.

VO #11: They had anonymously posted prejudicial comments condemning the cops before and during the trial. The government attorneys were Jan Mann, Karla Dobinski and Salvatore Perricone.

O’Keefe: It also turns out that one of those U.S. Attorney’s was blogging about me.

VO #12: Salvatore Perricone used the screen name legacy U.S.A when commenting about my case. The day after my arrest he anonymously blogged, “sure they should be punished. Throw the book at them.”

legacyusa Jan 27, 2010 Of all the idiots we have in the Senate, why did they pick Mary. Besides, she’s hardly ever in that office, anyway. So why? Sure they should be punished. Throw the book at them. But why that office?

VO #13: On May 25th, 2010 the Mary Landrieu case ended.

O’Keefe: The government gave me three years of probation for a class b misdemeanor. It was very unusual. The case was handled unusually. Days before I was sentenced, a federal judge who usually doesn’t get involved in misdemeanor cases, made reference of an extremely serious crime I committed. He talked about acts of violence being committed.

Madigan: I have to say that in forty years of practice I’ve never seen a probation like that. It was extremely onerous, with regard to James. It made his life miserable basically requiring all kinds of things that I thought were totally unnecessary and that I have never seen before or since.

O’Keefe: I want people to know about this. I want them to know what happened here./// All of these people need to be brought to justice.

VO #14: Now, some five years on…it is time to set the record straight. Senator Landrieu needs to address these questions. And the prosecutors who handled my case, must answer for their possibly criminal or at least unethical actions.

The Killing of White Police Officers by Blacks Ignored

The information below is from Gary R. Rickert, a retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer, with whom I once served. He outlines how, over a 60 day period this past summer, four white police officers were murdered by black criminal assailants. Those four police officers were murdered while trying to enforce the law, like police officers throughout the nation do daily, at the risk to their lives. The report of these police officer murders was published by the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) News Group.

Where was President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan when those four white police officers were murdered by black criminals—did they wring their hands, instigate national street demonstrations that are dividing the races, and are they going to insist on four federal civil rights investigations by the Justice Department to determine if the civil rights of the four white Police Officers were violated by the black criminals?

Many other white police officers, who enforce the law daily at a risk to their lives, have been murdered since July 2014.

The repeated public comments by Attorney General Holder and President Obama about a criminal, Michael Brown, continues to foment racial strife.. Brown weighed 325 pounds, was high on drugs, robbed a convenience store, manhandled the owner of the convenience store, refused to follow the orders of a police officer who was dispatched to investigate the convenience store robbery. Brown then beat the police officer in his own police car while Brown was trying to take the police officer’s gun away. After the attack on the police officer, Brown refused to halt as ordered by the police officer. Instead of halting, Brown turned and tried to attack the police officer for a second time. According to the testimony of five black witnesses, Brown was charging the police officer like a football player, when he was shot in self-defense. A Grand Jury impaneled long before the shooting of Brown occurred, with three black members, found Brown’s shooting to be an authorized shooting.

President Obama and Attorney General Holder’s public comments have resulted in street demonstration, the torching of stores, and the firebombing of many cars which is perpetrating racial divides (Over the past 6+ years, President Obama and AG Holder’s public comments have aggravated and perpetuated racial strife). AG Holder announced to the nation that he has ordered the Justice Department to conduct a federal civil rights investigation to determine if a criminal high on drugs, who robbed a convenience store, who beat a police officer, then tried to disarm the police officer, and then tried to charge the police officer a second time, had his civil rights violated by the police officer.

Attorney General Holder and President Obama have it wrong, the civil rights of a white police officer was being violated by a black criminal who attacked him, beat him, tried to disarm him, and was trying to attack him for a second time. AG Holder and President Obama continue to ignore the repeated murders of white police officers by black criminals, and charge that there are too many unauthorized shootings of blacks by police officers—which is not true.

sdpd new groupPlease read the SDPD News Group report:

Does anyone remember Detective Melvin Santiago? He was a Jersey City police officer who was shot to death just a month ago, on July 13th. Santiago was white. His killer, Lawrence Campbell, was black. Does anyone recall Obama appearing before national television and calling for justice for Officer Santiagos family? Does anyone recall Eric Holder rushing to Jersey City to see that justice was done?

How about Officer Jeffrey Westerfield? He was a Gary, Indiana police officer who was shot to death on July 6, 2014. Officer Westerfield was white, his killer, Carl LeEllis Blount, Jr. was black. where was Obama? Where was Holder?

Officer Perry Renn was an Indianapolis, Indiana police officer who was shot to death July 5, 2014, the day before Officer Westerfield was killed. Officer Renn was white. His killer, Major Davis, was black. I don’t recall any mention by Obama about the untimely death of Officer Renn. and, I doubt that Eric Holder rushed to Indianapolis to make sure justice was served.

Vermillion Parish Deputy Sheriff Allen Bares was gunned down by two men June 23, 2014 in Louisiana. Deputy Bares was white. His two killers, Quintlan Richard and Baylon Taylor were black. Was Obama outraged? Did Eric Holder rush to Louisiana to make sure that the family of Deputy Bares found justice?

Detective Charles Dinwiddie of the Killen, Texas Police Department was murdered on May 11, 2014 by Marvin Lewis Guy, a black male. Officer Dinwiddie was white. Do you recall seeing anything about that on the news? Certainly, the white citizens of Killeen didn’t take to the streets to loot and burn businesses. Do you recall any mention of Obama or Holder here?

Then, there is Officer Kevin Jordan of Griffin, Georgia Police Department. He was gunned down on May 31, 2014. Officer Jordan was black, his killer, Michael Bowman was white. This was a white man murdering a black police officer. Where was Jesse Jackson? Where was “The Reverend” Al Sharpton? Was there looting and burning on the streets of Griffin, Georgia? No, in fact, we don’t recall hearing about this one in the news as well. Why? You can draw your own conclusions.

Over that 60 day period, there have been five reported deaths of police officers by gunshot in the U.S. Of those, four were white officers who were murdered by black men. Blacks complain that white officers treat black men more aggressively on the street. You can draw your own conclusions on that one, as well.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of ABC News.

5 New Assaults on Freedom of Speech Around the World

Over at PJ Media I explore some of the latest news in the ongoing international Islamic supremacist war against the freedom of speech:

Freedom of speech is under all manner of attack these days, and the assault upon it made significant advances last week.

Americans should take note. Barack Obama’s notorious post-Benghazi declaration that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” is essentially a call for the U.S. to censor itself and voluntarily restrict our freedom of speech so as not to say anything that offends Muslims.

To go down this road would be the end of the U.S. as a free society. Restriction of the freedom of speech creates a protected class (whichever group cannot be criticized), thereby destroying the principle of equality of rights for all people before the law, and paves the way for tyranny by making it possible to criminalize dissent.

Islamic organizations, led by the 57-government Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), have for years been trying to intimidate the West into criminalizing criticism of Islam, so as to render us mute and defenseless in the face of the advancing jihad. They are trying to force the free West to accept Islamic restrictions on speech that is considered “blasphemous,” under the guise of “hate speech” laws. Consequently, the Muslim countries that are enforcing blasphemy laws with increasing frequency and openness are illustrating what could be in store for the West if Obama and the OIC get their wishes.

Here are five of last week’s assaults on the freedom of speech worldwide:

5. Pakistan: Bollywood actress gets 26 years for blasphemy

Bollywood star Veena Malik [pictured above], a Pakistani citizen, and her husband were sentenced last Tuesday to twenty-six years in prison for “blasphemy,” for the crime of dancing together on a television show as an Islamic religious song was being sung. Malik nonetheless maintains a touching, if fantastically misplaced, confidence in her country’s justice system: “It’s a shock to me but I have complete faith in Pakistan’s higher courts and judiciary.… This court works separately from the other courts in Pakistan. There are higher courts in Pakistan such as the Supreme Court.”

Veena Malik is higher-profile than Asia Bibi, a Christian woman awaiting execution on blasphemy charges, and other victims of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Maybe this will finally lead to an international outcry sufficient to get them repealed. But it probably won’t: that would be “Islamophobic.”

4. Bangladesh pol arrested for offending Muslims, Muslim group demands his death

Bloomberg reported Tuesday that “a former member of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed’s cabinet surrendered to police after he was accused of offending Muslims.” Abdul Latif Siddique, the former Bangladeshi telecommunications minister, was arrested for daring to say that “during Hajj, so much manpower is wasted. More than two million people have gone to Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj. They have no work, no production.”

For that, 22 separate police cases were filed against Siddique, and the Bangladeshi Islamic supremacist group Hefajat-e-Islam is calling for his blood, demanding that he be executed for his remarks and threatening to besiege the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka if he isn’t.

3. Iran: Death sentence upheld for man who insulted Muhammad on Facebook

An Iranian appeals court has upheld a death sentence given to Soheil Arabi, accused of insulting Muhammad on Facebook.

This kind of assault on the freedom of speech would never happen in the free West. If Soheil Arabi insulted Muhammad in the United States, he would just be rebuked for his “bigotry” and “intolerance,” and held up as an example of how racism is still pandemic in American society. There would be head-shaking articles in Salon and the Huffington Post about how “Islamophobia” was on the rise. He would be condemned as a neocon, Zionist agent of U.S. imperialism.

But Western countries wouldn’t sentence him to death. They believe in the freedom of speech!

Or do they?

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Veiled Muslima stabs American teacher to death in Abu Dhabi mall

State Dept hasn’t canceled passports of any US-based Islamic State jihadis

Jihad group quotes Qur’an to justify massacre of Christians

Birth of a Movement: ‘I am Darren Wilson’

There is a growing concern among law enforcement officers, as they face daily the criminal elements in their communities, that their political bosses, chain-of-command and communities are no supporting them. Police officers are concerned that they will be thrown under the bus in the name of race relations. This concern has turned into the “I Am Darren Wilson” movement. Three Portland, Washington police officers recently posted on their Facebook page the photo of a badge with a “I Am Darren Wilson” wrist band across it.

16420666-mmmainThe reaction by Portland Police Chief Mike Reese, who ordered these officers to take down images posted on their Facebook pages of the Police Bureau’s badge, is indicative of who will support them when push comes to shove.

The worst fears of the “thin blue line” have now been realized. No one has their back.

Law enforcement officers have every right to defend themselves. Unlike some who believe there is nation wide shoot first and ask questions later policy, nothing could be further from the truth. Police officers are trained on when deadly force is permissible. Any time a police officer responds to a call there is at least one gun involved, that of the police officer. Other than our military, police officers are among the best trained on how and when to use their weapons.

Abandoning them in the name of racial equality or community outreach is a false notion.

There is a war raging on Main Street  across America. The Ferguson protests involved 140 cities. Two New Black Panther members tried to bomb the St. Louis gateway arch. When you see these types of terrorist activities, what would you do? How would you respond? Who do you trust to respond?

If the police do not respond for fear of retribution, as in the case of Darren Wilson, then ordinary citizens are put in the position of either arming themselves, which they are, or letting their homes, churches and business burn to the ground.

Is this a race war? Certainly!

When the Ferguson coalition uses whites as human shields then we are talking race. These tactics are used by others such as Hamas in Gaza, the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

Is this what American is faced with, terrorism of a different variety? It appears so.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Marijuana Figures Big in Ferguson Meltdown

Gun Sales Expected to Skyrocket on Black Friday, FBI Worried (+video)

Christian Bale: If Moses Lived Today, ‘Drones Would Be Sent Out After Him’…

PROTEST RULES: White Michael Brown Protesters Told To Serve As Human Shields For Black Protesters

Uber against Racial Profiling: The sharing economy helps end ethnic and economic discrimination by Howard Baetjer Jr.

Market forces are regulating racial profiling by taxicabs better than government regulations do.

Investigative reporter Russ Ptacek, who is white, had to hail only 22 cabs to get 23 rides one recent day in Washington, DC. (One cab stopped before he hailed.) An African-American teammate in the investigation, dressed in the same clothes and hailing from the same spots, had to hail 34 cabs to get 23 rides. The other 11 ignored him.

A year-long investigation of what certainly looks like racial discrimination by taxi drivers in DC consistently produced such results. Here’s the video:

Are cab drivers indulging in irrational prejudice, or is their apparent racial profiling a rational reaction to the security and financial risks of their business? Most cabbies are from racial minorities themselves, but they reasonably worry about crime — taxi drivers are among the most frequently victimized professionals — so they might use race as one criterion in judging how safe it is to pick up different kinds of riders. And cabbies need to keep the meter running; they might worry that if they take a rider home to a low-income area, they won’t find another fare there to pay for the trip back to a busier area.

Whatever its cause, the racial profiling is a frustrating, insulting nuisance to those discriminated against. There must be a solution.

Like most cities, DC has regulations intended to prevent racial discrimination by taxi drivers; the Washington taxi commission can fine drivers for “refusal to haul.” But those regulations don’t work. Ptacek says, “We found no evidence over the past year that the DC taxi commission has done one thing, initiated one program to ensure all passengers are treated equally, regardless of race.”

This regulatory failure is not surprising. What incentive does the DC taxi commission have to enforce its “refusal to haul” regulations? What are the consequences for the commissioners’ jobs and paychecks if they don’t get cabbies to quit bypassing black and brown riders? None at all. Black riders may complain, but they have no other authority to turn to if their complaints go unheeded.

Is there a way around this government failure?

It turns out there is — in our day of smartphones and GPS, at least. A spokesman for Uber, the for-profit ride-sharing company still effectively unregulated by government, told NPR that “with 4 in 10 Uber trips starting or ending in neighborhoods underserved by taxis, Uber is ensuring that no rider is rejected because of who they are, where they live or where they want to go.” Why would Uber-directed drivers, unregulated by any government agency, pick up passengers from minority groups that government-regulated taxi drivers refuse?

The answer is that Uber drivers are regulated by Uber, Uber is regulated by market forces, and market forces regulate far more effectively than the DC taxi commission does.

Uber gets a cut of every fare, so the more fares it arranges, the more income it earns. Arranging more fares depends on building a reputation for getting cars to riders — all riders — quickly and reliably. Hence, Uber has a strong incentive to give its drivers the incentive to pick up every rider — black, white, or brown — right away.

It does that in two ways. First, it reduces its drivers’ reasons for racial profiling. Uber has each rider’s name, cell phone number, credit card information, and the time and route of the ride, so Uber riders are unlikely to rob drivers. Riders can’t skip out on a fare because Uber charges their credit cards, and since drivers aren’t paid in cash, they’re unattractive targets for criminals. And when an Uber driver drops off a rider in an out-of-the-way place, Uber immediately shows where the next closest fare is, so the driver is less likely to get stuck with a long, no-fare trip back to a busier area.

Second, using GPS information from users’ and drivers’ smartphones, Uber “sees” in real time when a driver drives past a would-be rider. “I didn’t see him” doesn’t work; Uber shows drivers where would-be riders are. And Uber fines its drivers for refusing fares. Uber’s regulation of racial profiling is thus comprehensive and immediate.

Here’s a beautiful instance of how market forces push people to pay attention to the well-being of others of all races. And it’s an instance of how modern technology and market incentives are making government regulations obsolete, if they were ever useful at all.

ABOUT HOWARD BAETJER JR.

Howard Baetjer Jr. is a lecturer in the department of economics at Towson University and a faculty member for seminars of the Institute for Humane Studies. This article is based on ideas from his book, Free Our Markets: A Citizens’ Guide to Essential Economics.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Ferguson – Michael Brown – Personal Responsibility

AA -  Ferguson Michael Brown Thug

Security camera video of Michael Brown assaulting Ferguson store owner. For a larger view click on the image.

Could personal responsibility have saved Michael Brown?

For whatever reasons, there is an aspect of the Ferguson, Missouri shooting and riots that has not been addressed in this highly emotional crisis, until today. We ask the question: Is it possible that Michael Brown was responsible for his own death?

Notwithstanding possible race inequities in this town, region, state, ought not the reasonable person analyze whether or not a series of decisions by Michael Brown – to rob a store, to assault the proprietor, to disobey a police command, to attack the police officer, to charge the police officer to attack him a second time – have anything to do with his death?

In this show we separate the Al Sharpton fiery charges of “systemic race hostilities,” from the personal behavior of Michael Brown and make the critical point that MUST be taught to the young black men in America – Your personal behavior will determine the quality and quantity of your future. Buckle up, this is a controversial segment because it raises a questions everyone wants to avoid.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Islamic supremacist groups connect their jihad to Ferguson riots

Here’s How America Responded the Morning After the Ferguson Decision

33 Photos of the Chaotic Streets of Ferguson

Tiny Settlement Check Gets Man “Angry” About Massive Plaintiff Lawyer Payouts

However, if you think he’s mad at the car company for stiffing him, you’re wrong.

Sourbeer points out that while he and other Toyota owners received a check that can’t cover a single tank of gas, plaintiff lawyers made bank:

The court awarded attorneys fees totaling $200 million, plus $27 million for expenses. And what did that get? Well, besides my $20.91 check, the 25 primary plaintiffs and class representatives—those connected directly to the case and participating in the actual lawsuit—received $395,270.

You read that right: The group of some 85 attorneys and their firms made about 500 times as much as the total amount the primary plaintiffs received.

Such massive disparities aren’t unusual in class action lawsuits. A 2013 Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) study found that plaintiff lawyers “are frequently the only real beneficiaries of the class actions.” It notes other examples where plaintiff lawyers got big paydays while class action members got little:

  • A Missouri case against a stock broker resulted in “only $20.42 to each of the brokerage’s former customers and three $8.22 coupons to each current customer.” Plaintiff lawyers got $21 million.
  • In a class action suit against Kellogg’s, “class members could request $5 refunds for up to three boxes of cereal.” Plaintiff lawyers got $1.3 million.

And recently, U.S. Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue explained how lawyers made more than half-a-million dollars from three text messages:

A Buffalo Bills fan sued the NFL team for receiving too many text messages—messages that he had signed up to receive. The fan claimed that he received three more messages in a two-week period than the Bills had promised to send and sought statutory damages. In the end, the lead plaintiff pocketed $5,000 in damages, other recipients of the extra texts received $2.4 million in payouts, and the lawyers walked away with a cool $562,500. So if you ask the Bills how much three extra text messages cost, the answer is $3 million.

Such lawsuit abuse harms the whole economy, Sourbeer points out:

How much will that cost me in the future? Will it add $200 to the price of my next car? Or $500? Or $1,000? Maybe that’s too much of an add-on in this case. But is it too much when we start totaling the lawsuits that hit all the products we buy every year?

The United States has the costliest legal system in the world. This weighs down our economy and makes us less competitive globally.

Knowing that make me angry too.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a settlement check similar to one that was sent to Jon Sourbeer. Photo credit: Gilardi & Co. LLC.

Obama Immigration Action is Illegal and Unconstitutional

The past six years of Obama’s reign in America have been littered with countless unconstitutional and criminal acts on a variety of fronts, too numerous to chronicle in any column length article.

However, his recent Executive Action on Immigration might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for millions of Americans, as he attempts to dictate law from beyond his constitutional authority and at odds with the overwhelming will of American citizens.

People have been scouring the Internet in search of Obama’s Executive Order on Immigration, with no joy. They have been unable to find a copy of the Executive Order because no such Executive Order actually exists.

Amnesty by Executive Action?

The American people were given the false impression that Barack Obama was signing an Executive Order providing amnesty for an estimated 4 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States.

Presidential Executive Orders are designed for emergency circumstances wherein there is no time for congressional action, the circumstance falls under the legal authority of the Oval Office, and the order is designed to carry out the duties of the Federal government under the U.S. Constitution and existing U.S. laws.

In the case of Obama’s recent Executive Action, the action is not within the legal authority of the Oval Office, it is not the result of any emergency circumstance of the United States, and it is not designed to carry out the sworn duties of the Federal government under the United States Constitution or U.S. laws. In fact, it is designed to subvert the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws governing immigration and naturalization.

As a result, Barack Obama did NOT issue an Executive Order. Instead, he used what is called Executive Action, which has no force of law behind it, whatsoever. In doing so, Obama acted under “the color of office” to openly subvert and circumvent U.S. law.

The Alleged Legal Foundation for Obama’s Executive Action

According to the White House, Barack Obama has the legal authority to take unilateral action on Immigration on the basis that past presidents have done the same. This statement is also false.

The Facts

  • In 1961, President John F. Kennedy used Executive Action to delay the deportation of Cuban refugees seeking political asylum in the United States during the Cuban crisis. (1,000,000)
  • In 1975, President Gerald Ford used Executive Action during the evacuation of Vietnamese refugees with American ties at the end of the Vietnam War. (360,000)
  • In 1980, President Jimmy Carter used Executive Action for Cuban and Haitian refugees during the Mariel boatlift crisis. (150,000)
  • In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used Executive Action to shield from deportation, Nicaraguan refugees during thecontra war in Nicaragua. (200,000)
  • In November 1989, President George H.W. Bush used Executive Action to delay the deportation of Chinese refugeesduring the Tiananmen Square crisis. (80,000)
  • In 1992-93, Presidents Bush and Clinton used Executive Action to delay the deportation of Salvadoran refugees during the Civil War in El Salvador. (200,000)
  • In December 1997, President Bill Clinton used Executive Action to delay the deportation of Haitian refugees during mass civil unrest in Haiti. (20-40,000)

Note: Many have falsely quoted the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act as an example of Executive power. However, this Act signed by Reagan in 1986 was legislation passed by the Democrat controlled Congress. It was not a unilateral Executive Action.

In each case presented above, the Executive Actions of past presidents were within the authority of the Oval Office, did nothing to alter, subvert or circumvent U.S. Immigration and Naturalization laws, and were all “emergency” actions related to real refugees in real life threatening circumstances.

In the case of Barack Obama’s recent Executive Action, none of these conditions apply. As a result, all claims that “previous presidents have done the same” are FALSE!

Because Congress has so far refused to act against the will of American citizens by passing any form of amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens who have been allowed to enter and remain in the United States against U.S. laws, Barack Obama moved to fraudulently and unilaterally grant ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS in the U.S. “refugee status” despite the fact that none of the illegal aliens involved are actually refugees from any crisis set of circumstance.

Once Barack Obama fraudulently declared all illegal aliens in the U.S. “refugees,” he then took illegal and unconstitutional unilateral actions to misuse our refugee policies to alter, subvert and circumvent the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws.

In sum, Barack Hussein Obama, acting “under the color of office,” abused Executive powers in an overt attempt to subvert and/or circumvent U.S. Immigration and Naturalization laws and usurp the Constitutional authority of Congress.

The actions of Barack Hussein Obama in this Executive Action are both illegal and unconstitutional. As they directly threaten national sovereignty and security, the act rises to the level of an impeachable offense, and may in fact rise to the level of treason.

How Obama Did It

In June of 2012, just ahead of the 2012 presidential election, Barack Obama, again fraudulently acting under the color of office, unilaterally created a policy known as The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) which took effect on August 15, 2012.

The DACA policy is the brainchild of a private “open borders” legal activism organization operating as Immigration Equality. Their About Us page states the following:

“Since 1994, Immigration Equality has been proud to support and represent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and HIV-positive immigrants seeking safety, fair treatment, and freedom. As the only LGBT organization with a staff of immigration attorneys, Immigration Equality impacts both the individuals we serve and the immigration system as a whole.”

In addition, the organization broadly identifies “whom” they represent in terms of what types of circumstances they focus upon in their effort to make every illegal alien a legal U.S. citizen via Executive fiat.

“In nearly 80 countries around the world, it is a crime to be gay. For far too many people, it is impossible to be out and proud if you also want to stay alive. For more than 20 years, we have been focused on providing free legal services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and HIV-positive immigrants, including:”

  • Asylum seekers forced to flee to the U.S. to find safety
  • Binational couples and families separated by oceans
  • Detainees trapped in immigration jail facilities
  • Undocumented LGBT people living in the shadows inside the U.S.

Operating in part by taxpayer funding from the Federal Government in the draft and implementation of Obama’s DACA policy, Immigration Equality is directly involved with the Obama Administration in the overt subversion and circumvention of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization laws, now functioning under the “color of law” via Barack Obama’s fraudulent use of his “color of office.”

The Executive Action

First and foremost, a distinction with a critical difference… Executive Orders are presumed to have the binding force of law, if the Executive Order is within the constitutional authority of the Executive Branch; or if the order is under a legal purview granted the Executive Branch by way of Congressional statute; or if the order is subsequently affirmed by Congress within the time allowed.

An Executive Action is non-binding by its very nature. It has no presumed or other binding force of law at its foundation. (Legal Reference)

The action taken by Barack Hussein Obama last week via Executive Action is an expansion of his 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, which is in and of itself, illegal and unconstitutional as explained above. It is therefore, an illegal act for anyone owing an oath of allegiance to the United States to act upon or adhere to the Executive Action. Following orders on the basis of this Executive Action may also rise to the level of misprision of treason, or at a very minimum, a breach of oath and public trust on the part of Federal Law Enforcement Agents.

The operational extent of this policy is stated as follows by Immigration Equality:

“Deferred action is a discretionary, limited immigration benefit by DHS. It can be granted to individuals who are in removal proceedings, who have final orders of removal, or who have never been in removal proceedings. Individuals who have deferred action status can apply for employment authorization and are in the U.S. under color of law. However, there is no direct path from deferred action to lawful permanent residence or to citizenship.  And, it can be revoked at any time.”

The facts that this policy is not law and the fact that as stated above, it provides “no direct path from deferred action to lawful permanent residence or citizenship,” makes Obama’s claim that “it is not amnesty” true.

Obama’s Executive Action as it currently exists, is not amnesty, as it provides no direct path to permanent residency or citizenship, and in fact, is not law.

However, what is does represent is an open refusal to faithfully execute the laws of our nation, to uphold the Constitution of the United States, to protect and defend national sovereignty and security, and it is a direct assault upon and usurpation of Constitutional Congressional authority.

Therefore, it is an overt act of usurping the U.S. Constitution, a direct violation of the Presidential Oath of Office, a direct assault on the American people and a direct threat to national sovereignty and security. It is an “impeachable offense” to say the very least and may very well constitute an overt act of treason. (18 U.S. Code § 2381)

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

All members of the Obama Administration, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, who are in any way complicit in these actions taken by Barack Hussein Obama, are according to U.S. laws, guilty of misprision of treason, as co-conspirators to the act. (18 U.S. Code § 2382)

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.”

The final result of the action Barack Obama took last week on Immigration is he illegally ordered Federal agencies and agents to stand down on enforcing our nations’ Immigration and Naturalization laws, without any authority to do so, or any force or color of law supporting his order. He and his co-conspirators have ordered the Federal government to break the law, solely on his personal decree…

Congressional Authority and Duty

Currently, members of Congress are going out of their way to avoid their sworn duties under the U.S. Constitution. They are searching for any way possible to avoid their duty and authority to immediately move to the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama and the removal of and criminal prosecution of all co-conspirators.

Prior to the current usurpation of Congress and abuse of the Oval Office, North American Law Center (NALC) had already called for the immediate impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama, drafting and releasing to the public and members of congress, a proposed set of Articles of Impeachment based upon a long string of past criminal acts within the Obama Administration.

Article II requires under Section I – that before anyone enter on the execution of the Oval Office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:- “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Under Article II – Section IV, the U.S. Constitution prescribes one single legal solution for any occupant of the Oval Office upon their commission of criminal acts – “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

As a result, former Federal Judge and Fox News Legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano called it exactly correct when he stated that “Impeachment is the only legal solution” for what Obama has done.

So, why are Tea Party stalwarts Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Trey Gowdy working so hard to find a way out of doing their constitutional duty to impeach? Why did congressional Republicans adjourn and leave DC on Thanksgiving recess without putting a stop to Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional action? Two of the three are lawyers…

Misprision of Treason

Because Barack Hussein Obama has so many co-conspirator in his many acts of fraud, usurpation, abuse of office and treason against the United States and the people, all of whom are guilty of misprision of treason under 18 U.S. Code § 2382, it is impossible to know who might be able to legally succeed Barack Hussein Obama to office once all evidence of treason and misprision of treason are presented in an impeachment investigation and trial.

In short, everyone knows he should be impeached, removed from office and held on criminal charges after being removed from office. However, once the process of presenting evidence of treason and misprision of treason begins, no one knows how that process will end or who may be left standing to succeed Obama to the Oval Office.

As a result, massive efforts are underway in congress to find any solutions other than impeachment of the most impeachable administration in U.S. history.

However, due to the extreme nature of Barack Obama’s actions and their direct threat to national sovereignty and security, members of congress cannot avoid their constitutional duty to impeach without becoming complicit in the crimes. They too, will be guilty of misprision of treason, should they fail to immediately move to impeachment, allowing Obama’s actions to stand in direct violation of the law, the Constitution and the will of American citizens.

Many Americans believe that congress can simply escape their responsibility by refusing to act. However, congress can only refuse to act if the American people allow it. If the American people act, congress will be forced to act, or face the outrage of the American people along with Barack Obama.

When the Rule of Constitutional Law fails at the highest levels of government, the people have the right and the duty to alter or to abolish, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.

(All information provided herein was carefully vetted by Constitutional Attorney’s at the North American Law Center prior to release. Proposed Articles of Impeachment are available to the public HERE.)

Racism Can Be White or Black

On Monday, Nov 17, 2014, the Governor of Missouri activated its National Guard “to support law enforcement during any period of unrest that might occur following the grand jury’s decision concerning the investigation into the death of Michael Brown.” He declared a state of emergency.

A grand jury verdict that is likely to exonerate officer Darren Wilson is assumed to require significant law enforcement because in August we witnessed the initial weeks of rioting, looting and arson in what has been described by police authorities as an organized effort.

When the subject of racism occurs, it is always in terms of white racism and rarely, if ever, discussed in terms of black racism.

However, racism is a two-way street and while the ill treatment African-Americans encountered as slaves and for a century thereafter before the Civil Rights Act in 1964 is surely cause for resentment the fact remains that black Americans have had fifty years, two generations, of opportunity and equality intended to redress the past.

What white Americans find it difficult to understand is why there are protests at this point. Don’t the lives of blacks who have been killed, as often as not by other blacks, have value too?

Why doesn’t the fact that the nation has a black President, a black Attorney General, a black Supreme Court justice, blacks in Congress, and ample evidence of the progress the black community has made since the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed seem to make any difference?

AA -  Ferguson Michael Brown Thug

Security camera stills of Michael Brown assaulting shop keeper in Ferguson, MO. For a larger view click on the image.

The events in Ferguson are well known by now. Video confirmed that Michael Brown stole some cigarillos at the Ferguson Market and Liquors on August 9th and when one of the staff protested, he was threatened in a menacing manner by Brown, a very large young man.

The theft was swiftly reported to the police with a description that fit Brown. Not long after, Officer Wilson, driving alone, spoke to Brown and a companion, telling them to move away from the center of West Florissant Avenue. At that point Brown began to scuffle with Wilson and forensic evidence showed that Wilson’s gun was fired twice in the police car during the struggle. Brown allegedly punched him repeatedly, leaving a swelling on his face. He attacked a police officer.

Wilson went after Brown to arrest him and when Brown turned on him he was shot six times. Reportedly, six black witnesses to the incident confirmed Officer Wilson’s account. The autopsy is said to have showed evidence of marijuana in Brown’s system. Brown was not armed, but his size and the assault on Officer Wilson constituted a threat to Wilson’s life.

What followed were weeks of demonstrations that quickly escalated in force, in arson and looting in addition to the confrontations between the protesters and the police. Missouri Governor Jay Nixon deployed the National Guard to help quell the disturbances. In October the Ferguson Police Department handed over responsibility to the county police department which is larger and better equipped. At this point, all of the police who were called upon had protective gear and an arsenal of means to quell a riot.

Why did the shooting evoke such a reaction? Why did those involved in the demonstrations assume it was more than a white cop versus black suspect situation? The assumption among the protesters is that a white police officer had shot Brown for no reason other than racism.

Blacks (and whites) who commit crimes or who are suspected of doing so and who are seen to pose a lethal threat are killed by police during the course of any year. However, statistically blacks are more involved in crime, from minor to major, than whites. According to the NAACP, “African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites.” This is blamed on poverty, poor education, and other factors, but America has had wave after wave of immigrants come here, work hard, enter the middle class, and rise to success.

It is worth noting that the Ferguson police force has few blacks in its ranks. Of its 53 members, only three are black. Why? Is there something about being a police officer that is unappealing to blacks in Ferguson? This is a useful question given the fact that 67% of Ferguson’s residents are black.

Maybe we can just blame the demonstrations, the burning and looting of businesses on the fact that among the most dangerous U.S. cities, the Huffington Post just listed St. Louis as number four, dropping down from being number three last year. “The city has the highest murder rate of any locale in the top five, with 38 murders per 100,000 people. Its overall violent crime rate is 1,594 violent crimes per 100,000 people.” Ferguson is a suburb of St. Louis, a city whose population is nearly half black.

The “demonstrators” and “protesters” in Ferguson are a disgrace. They have put hard working, law abiding blacks at risk of being lumped in with their behavior. That, regrettably, is how racism works.

If, however, you want to exploit the incident, you send the U.S. Attorney General to Ferguson to stir up the black racism that exists and you have the Department of Justice conduct both civil and criminal investigations.

If you want to exploit the incident, you have the Attorney General participate in planting a tree last Monday in the memory of Emmett Till, a teenager who was murdered in 1955 by white bigots and have him speak of young black men “who died senselessly,” but Michael Brown died as the result of an assault on a police officer.

The grand jury has conducted its investigation and will likely find that a police officer lawfully defended himself against a young thug. That’s how our legal system works. And black racism is every bit as bad as white racism.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of BlackRadioNetwork.com.