Brown’s Funeral, the Exploiters and America’s Police

Though skillfully orchestrated to transform convenience store robber Michael Brown into a heroic martyr for civil rights, his funeral was hijacked into becoming a platform for the evil and obscene slander of police and America, perpetrated by the usual deplorable suspects; Al Sharpton, Democrats and the MSM.

Candidly, as a black man, it is easy to feel a little like odd man out; consistently finding myself taking the opposite side than a majority of black Americans. In 2008, over 96% of blacks voted for Obama. I did not.

While I am familiar with black Republican author, orator, and advisor to U.S. Presidents, Booker T. Washington, I only recently came across this amazing quote from him which nailed the Rev. Sharptons and Rev Jacksons of America back in 1911.

“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

Wow! Booker T. Washington had these low life scoundrels figured out way back then. He perfectly described the shameful despicable exploitation of the goodness of the American people on display at the Michael Brown funeral.

Folks, in a nutshell, the Left’s selective outrage over Brown’s death is about getting paid and ginning up rage-based black voter turnout for Democrats in November. Apparently, the Democrats and MSM only consider a young black male’s life of value when it is taken by a white person. Epidemic black on black shootings only get a yawn from Dems and the MSM while sipping their mocha lattes.

Insidiously, irresponsibly and strategically, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder even threw in their anecdotal two cents, sharing their uncomfortable experiences with police as black males.

Allow me to offer a few of my numerous anecdotal encounters with police.

In the 1970s, my cousin who lived in a low income neighborhood in Baltimore had a nervous breakdown. He held his two toddler sons hostage in his basement, threatening to kill himself and his kids. Shortly after I arrived on the scene, two white cops responded to my cousin’s wife’s emergency phone call.

In seconds, the young slim fit cop dashed up the ten front steps into the house. He then waited for his partner’s instructions. His much older obese partner moved a bit slower. After negotiating the steps, he waddled to the open basement door.

Upon catching his breath, with wisdom, experience and compassion, the seasoned police officer talked my cousin out of the basement. “C’mon son, I know you’re hurtin’. But, you don’t wanna do this.”

Fearful for my cousin’s life, I was extremely relieved. The incident totally contradicted what my militant black college associates said to expect from white “pigs”; shoot the n***** and ask questions later.

On another occasion, my wife and I were surrounded by police cars at a traffic light and ordered out of our car. A bank robbery had just taken place. The perpetrators were an interracial couple driving a car very similar to ours. Mary and I were calm and cooperative. Upon checking us out, the police apologized for the inconvenience and were quickly on their way.

There were other opportunities for an over zealous or racist cop to act like a jerk; it never happened.

Am I saying that bad cops do not exist? Of course, not. Man is a fallen sinful creature. Consequently, bad players show up in every area of the human experience; bad cops, priests, teachers and so on. Jesus had a 12 man crew. One was a bad apple.

I am saying that the Left’s narrative that police departments across America are dens of “institutional police brutality” is hogwash; as bogus as their mythical “Republican war on women”. Neither are white cops using black boys for target practice. According to FBI stats, out of 12 million yearly arrests, only 400 resulted in fatal shootings; many justified.

Another disgusting aspect of the Left’s political exploitation of Brown’s death is the cruel crucifixion of Officer Darren Wilson without a trial.

thank a police officer daySeveral years ago, I visited a buddy at work at the police station. He was a black veteran Baltimore City police officer and talented musician; a gentle giant. On the occasion of my visit, he was working lock up. My friend greeted me with his signature big smile and easygoing personality. During my visit, I witnessed his personality fluidly flow between easygoing musician to tough cop mode when dealing with criminals and prisoners.

He later explained that policing 101 requires that you always take control of the situation; less you risk getting caught off guard and stabbed in the back by a suspect’s weepy old gray-haired mom or a girlfriend.

People who are second guessing and criticizing Officer Wilson for not tazing or shooting Brown in a non fatal area of his body are just plain clueless.

I wish to offer my sincere heartfelt, thanks, prayers and support to all of our brave men and women who protect and serve us; police, troops, firefighters, veterans and border parole agents. God bless.

EDITORS NOTE: September 20, 2014 is national Thank a Police Officer Day. If you wish to make a video thanking your local police force or sheriff visit the Whole Truth Project.

Freedom OF Religion, Not Freedom FROM Religion

The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution do not abandon religion, they embrace it. They do not, however, require that Americans believe in God, nor punish them for failing to do so.

Central to the liberties enshrined in these documents is the belief that they come from a higher power and America exists because of that belief. Without it there would have been no America. There are those among us who insist that, as a nation, we abandon faith in God and, if we do, America will cease to be a power for good in the world.

First-Amendment-Religious-Freedom-610x400When Thomas Jefferson presented the Declaration to those who would pledge their lives and their sacred honor to achieve independence from England John Adams asked that it include the words “They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” after the phrase “all men are created equal” and Benjamin Franklin agreed, suggesting that “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” be added as well.” In their 2004 book, “Under God” by Toby Mac and Michael Tait, said “The changes demonstrated Congress’s strong reliance upon God—as delegates added the words “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions.”

Aware of the dangers inherent in a state religion, the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” followed by freedom of speech, the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance.” There is no state religion in America, but reflecting the values that created it, its leaders have always acknowledged a greater power than government, the belief in God.

There would be no America if the Pilgrims who established Plymouth, Massachusetts had not left England in the quest for their right to worship as they wished, reflecting the Protestant Reformation. Another early settlement, Jamestown, was a business venture by investors to obtain wealth. Jamestown failed and Plymouth is with us today.

I am not a religious person per se, but I do believe in God. Always have and always will. I don’t insist that anyone else has to and neither do our founding documents. They do, however, acknowledge God and sought His protection to create a new nation; a republic with clearly stated protections for all its citizens.

There are, however, those who insist that any reference to God be removed from public documents and recognition. The leader among them is the Freedom From Religion Foundation and their most recent lawsuit is against the U.S. Treasury Department claiming they are discriminating against non-believers by including the phrase “In God We Trust” on the nation’s currency. Their claim is that the government is prohibited from endorsing religion over non-religion.

“In God We Trust” on U.S. coins was first approved by Congress during the Civil War in 1864. In 1956, Congress passed a resolution to recognize the words officially as the national motto, replacing the de facto phrase, “E Pluribus Unum” and it has appeared on U.S. currency since 1957.

The Foundation’s intention is to make any acknowledgement of God illegal by any public institution. If that is true, then we might was well tear up the Declaration and Constitution. Atheists are not content to not believe in God, they insist that everyone else not believe as well. That is a form of tyranny we must not permit to exist in America.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation specializes in lawsuits to advance what it calls the separation of church and state, but this principle is enshrined in the Constitution along with the right to freely exercise one’s faith. Its lawsuits are designed to destroy religion in America. In 2012 the Foundation had total contributions of $2,726,316. Nearly 90% was devoted to its attack on the freedom of religion.

In 2013, the Huffington Post reported that in the past six years the Foundation’s paid membership had increased 130 percent. It was estimated at “nearly 20,000” members. Its co-president, Laurie Gaylor, said that recent high-profile legal victories had increased the foundation’s popularity.

There is still strong support in Congress for the freedom of religion. In 1993 it passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion. It was signed into law by President Clinton. In 1997 the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional if applied to states, ruling that it was not a proper exercise of Congress’s enforcement power. It does, however, still apply to the federal government. In response, some states passed their own religious freedom restoration acts.

The Act was recently cited by the Supreme Court that ruled that closely held companies may be exempted from a government requirement to include contraceptives in employee health insurance coverage if it contravenes their belief in the sanctity of life.

There are millions more Americans who belong to various religious faiths and who believe that America must protect their right to exercise their faith. A relatively small Freedom From Religion Foundation will continue to use the courts to impose their atheistic views on any public institution. They must be resisted if America is to remain a citadel to the world as a place where people of faith can live together and exercise the tolerance that the atheists will not.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Connecting the Red Dots: Where convicted illegal alien murderers were released

I grew up believing you people in Washington took your oaths seriously to protect the citizens yet ICE released 169 convicted killers and a total of 35,000 other criminals back into our society because their home countries won’t take them back. Together, they committed nearly 88,000 crimes, according to recently released report.

Question: A total of 36,000 illegal aliens involved whose countries won’t take them back must be a large number of countries. So how many are there?

Do you in Congress have the names of the countries refusing to back their citizens? Do you know which of those countries we currently give financial aid? Do you plan on stopping all aid immediately to any country that won’t take back their citizens? If not, why not?

What about transferring them all to Guantanamo Bay so they won’t be a threat to U.S. citizens?

unnamed (12)

Click on the map for a larger view.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Feds Let Go of Dozens of Convicted Murder Illegal Immigrants, See Where They Are on This Map | National Review Online

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of 100PercentFedUp.com.

Ferguson, Missouri: The Face of the ‘War on Whites’

“The squeaky wheel gets the grease” is an American idiom used to convey the idea that the most noticeable (or loudest) problems (or people) are the ones most likely to get attention.

Americans are shocked and dismayed by the shootings, looting and rioting happening in Ferguson, Missouri. Elected leaders, at every level of government, appear to be rewarding this behavior by giving it undo attention. First it was Governor Jay Nixon (D-MO) taking full control of the streets of Ferguson from the Mayor and City Council. Governor Nixon then called out the Missouri National Guard. Now President Obama is sending U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to Ferguson. The “attention escalation” has been breathtaking. Yet, the more attention they get the more violent they become.

On Saturday, August 9th, 2014 there were two shootings involving black and white men, the one in Ferguson and another in Miami, FL. The differences in “attention escalation” are stark.

miami synagogue hamas swastikaA visiting 60-year old Brooklyn orthodox Rabbi Joseph Raksin was shot dead by two young black men in full view of his son-in-law and grandsons while walking to Shabbat (Saturday) services at Bais Menachem synagogue in North Miami.  It is alleged by Miami Dade police that it may have been a botched robbery attempt.  The irony is that orthodox Jews carry no money on Shabbat. One of the black assailants fled on a bicycle, while the other, on foot.  The week before the murder of Rabbi Raksin an Orthodox synagogue, in the same vicinity,  Torah V’Emunah,  was vandalized with red swastikas with the word “Hamas”.

Why are government officials not treating both shootings equally under the law?

The answer may be that many, including Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL), believe America is seeing an escalation of the “War on Whites”. In terms of getting attention, it appears there are different rules for a black man killing a white man than for a white man (or white police officer) shooting a black man. David Weigel from the Huffington Post reports on Congressman Brooks remarks concerning illegal immigration and a “War on Whites”:

“Well, this is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party,” he said. “And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else. It’s part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well, that’s not true, OK? And if you look at the polling data, every demographic group in America agrees with the rule of law and securing our borders.” He told listeners to seek out a speech Rep. Raul Labrador (whose family is Puerto Rican) gave about the rhetoric. ‘The Democrats, they have to demagogue on this, and turn it into a racial issue.'”

The featured image is of King Shamir Shabazz who is in Ferguson. Shabazz was, as were the Reverend Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, in Florida during the 2012 Trayvon Martin shooting trial and participated in demonstrations in the Orlando area.

black power salute

New Black Panther Party members give the black power salute from the stage of the “Redeem the Dream” event at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

In April 2012 Florida private investigator Bill Warner reported, “Shabazz started out in Louis Farrakhan’s ‘Fruit of Islam’ security detail. He later left to join his idol Khallid Muhammed in the New Black Panther Party.  On whites: ‘I’m about the total destruction of white people. I’m about the total liberation of black people. I hate white people. I hate my enemy. . . .’. ‘The only thing the cracker understands is violence,’ said Shabazz, whose face also bears the tattoos ‘Freedom,’ ‘BPG’ (Black Power Gang) and ‘NBPP’ (New Black Panther Party). ‘The only thing the cracker understands is gunpowder.'”

Is there a war against White people? Are we seeing the rise of the Islamic State of Ferguson (ISOF)?

There are certain pejoratives used by those conducting the war on whites or “white war mongers.” Words like: Christian, Jew, right wing, legal citizen, gun owner, businessman, rich, conservative, constitutionalist, married with children, TEA Party, TEA bagger, racist, Islamophobe, homophobe or just plain “whitey.” There are also pejoratives for blacks who act like whites: Uncle Tom, not black enough, etc. You can tell these white war mongers by their use of a Nazi style salute, talk about social justice for themselves but not whitey and make demands that call for equality for anyone but whites.

Greg Gutfeld from the Fox News program The Five said these rioters, “Need slugs not hugs.” Rep. Brooks said on Breitbart TV, “White[s] are treated differently, you can discriminate against them.” Brooks said there is “reverse discrimination” going on.

Ferguson has become the face of the “War on Whites”. If you doubt it just watch the nightly news.

What do you think about the war on whites? Please leave a comment.

RELATED ARTICLES:

“ISIS HERE” banner in Ferguson, Missouri as jihadis try to exploit race conflict
Officer Darren Wilson Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack
Are Terrorists Targeting Police in Ferguson?
Preliminary Report: Over A Dozen Witnesses Back Darren Wilson’s Story
Is It Legal to Use the National Guard in Ferguson?
Race-based hate crimes spike in D.C.; whites most common victims, but under-reporting feared – Washington Times

RELATED VIDEOS:

New Black Panthers lead “Death Chant”  for white officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, MO:

Bill O’Reilly defines the root cause of black violence and chaos:

Bill Whittle on the Real Race War in America:

The Paladins of Police Abuse and Militarization: 3 quick thoughts on the MSM, Libertarians, and Ferguson by Max Borders

1. The mainstream media have been lagging libertarians and citizen journalists on the issue of domestic militarization and police abuse for years.

Only with the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, has police abuse become a “story.” Thankfully it is. But where were the mainstream media when Radley Balko was reporting on police militarization in 2006—and about abuse in general for a decade? Where was the MSM while Reason was reporting on police abuse daily? Citizen activists like the Peaceful Streets Project have been trying to raise awareness for local areas like Austin. Copblock has similar awareness-raising strategies and encourages citizens to film police as often as possible. The Free Thought Project also catalogs police abuse, and I must have read a story per week like this, on average, in the lead-up to Michael Brown’s killing. Now the MSM shows up and attempts to gallop to the front, as if paladins who’d been there all along.

2. Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman is either a liar or a fool.

I don’t want to appear as if I’m going all ad hominem, but I can’t think of any other possible hypothesis for Waldman. In this article, he says libertarians have been MIA on the matter of Ferguson. Nevermind that his own WaPo colleague Radley Balko, mentioned above, covers this beat. It’s clear Waldman hadn’t done any due diligence before he wrote the piece and turned the event into a opportunity to take a cheap shot at Rand Paul. Senator Paul (R-Ky) has since published his views in Time.

As I said above, libertarians have been jumping up and down about this issue for a long time, and recent events in Ferguson are no exception (see here and here). Sometimes we’re the only ones writing about militarization. And progressives seem only to care about it when it’s going to prove the whole country is racist. It’s silly to most of us that this one instance has become so important right now because the mainstream media have decided it is important. Some combination of an information cascade and bandwagon effect was in play, I suppose. In any case, Paul Waldman simply hopped on that bandwagon and used it to pull a drive-by on the very people who have been trying to raise awareness for a long time.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown has no time for this sort of garbage, as she demonstrates over at The Dish.

3. The treatment and detainment of two journalists, Wesley Lowery of The Washington Post and Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post, is a cakewalk compared to what other journalists and citizen journalists have endured.

Consider the case of Antonio Buehler, who was slammed to the ground by police after he filmed a New Year’s Eve traffic stop in which he witnessed two officers roughing up two young women suspected of DUI. They then threatened and arrested Buehler on felony charges, allegedly for spitting at one of the officers. Another person, quite fortuitously, filmed the Buehler incident and determined that the police had lied about the spitting. Since that time Buehler has spent considerable time and money fighting all the trumped-up charges. See his story here:

Similarly, citizen journalist Ademo Freeman had been looking at significant jail time for felony wiretapping charges. See tons of other examples at Photography Is Not A CrimeThe Free Thought Project, and Copblock.org. These folks are not invisible to those who care. They have just been invisible to the MSM, who apparently circle the wagons around their own and make these practices a story when it suits them. 

MaxBordersVEsmlABOUT MAX BORDERS

Max Borders is the editor of The Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also cofounder of the event experience Voice & Exit and author of Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Database Shows What Military Equipment Your Local Police Department Has Been Stockpiling

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

Deputizing America: Sooner or later, we’ll all work for the State—unless we do something about it by Iain Murray

It’s an old Western movie trope. The harassed sheriff needs help against Desperado D. Blackhat and his gang of gunslingers. He goes into the saloon, finds the gambler who was once the most feared crack shot this side of the Pecos, and makes him his deputy. Together, they run Blackhat and his gang out of town. If you thought that type of quick-and-dirty deputizing died with the Wild West, think again. Government is deputizing people all over the country to do its law-enforcement work. But unlike that gambler, they don’t get the chance to say no.

Take, for instance, FedEx. The delivery company has been indicted by federal prosecutors for not doing the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) job for it. The DEA alleges that FedEx knowingly shipped pharmaceuticals for online pharmacies that were based on invalid prescriptions, because it should have known “the principals, company names, shipping addresses and billing addresses that were initially connected to” a network of pharmacies closed down by the DEA in 2003. As a recent Wall Street Journal editorial summarized:

Translation: FedEx employees should have connected the dots. But if it’s so easy, why didn’t the DEA do it? The truth is that unmasking the bad guys would have required an extensive metadata analysis of customer data that is not FedEx’s job.

The DEA also alleges that FedEx should have known its orders were based on fraudulent prescriptions from visiting the pharmacies’ facilities for inspection. That’s not something a shipping company is set up to do. It is something a law enforcement agency is set up to do, but the DEA didn’t do it. So by its indictment of FedEx, the feds are telling all other delivery firms that they are now forcibly deputized to do the DEA’s job in the War on Drugs. If they don’t play along, they need to show up in court.

Banking regulators have been playing a similar game. Under a campaign known as Operation Choke Point, they have been telling banks that if they don’t investigate their customers for “high-risk” activity, they will be subject to subpoenas and everything that implies. As a result, banks have simply been cutting off links to potentially risky customers on the simple basis of what business they are in. As Department of Justice documents show (which I document extensively in my recent report on the operation), the motivation for Choke Point was the feds’ lack of manpower to investigate the risky businesses themselves. So they deputized the banks to do their job for them.

If New York’s Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) has its way, bitcoin businesses operating in the state will be deputized, too. The NYDFS, supposedly concerned about fraud risk, is demanding that businesses that use bitcoin keep a public record of every transaction. This would destroy the currency’s appeal by undermining one of its most potent selling points: users’ expectations of privacy. As Jim Harper, global policy counsel for the Bitcoin Foundation, told Coinbase,

Surveillance of transactions is at odds with both bitcoin users’ and consumers’ privacy demands, and the level of privacy they could expect is similar to that dictated by deals between corporations and governments in the fiat currency realm.

There are many more examples, from gambling regulators forcing credit processing companies to stopping unlawful online gambling transactions—without a clear definition of “unlawful” in this context—to immigration authorities deputizing employers to confirm potential employees’ immigration status.

In each of these cases, the executive is essentially requiring businesses to deploy employees to work for the government, rather than the company. The justification, supposedly to protect consumers from fraud or other abuse by a third party, traditionally has been reserved to the government as part of its law enforcement powers. That’s why the term “deputizing” is so appropriate—the government is making businesses into its policemen. The only difference is it will charge them with a crime if they don’t agree. No wonder the easy way out is just to stop doing business with the third party at all.

This is a disturbing and unprecedented tendency. It’s time that we put a stop to it, before we all end up working for the government whether we like it or not. Next time, it won’t just be dodgy online pharmacies or payday lenders that are in the crosshairs, but anyone or anything the government of the day doesn’t like or understand. In a world where you can’t do business because the government has its nose in everything, innovation will grind to a halt much like the Western movie genre.

ABOUT IAIN MURRAY

Iain Murray is vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Governor Rick Perry and the Dirty Democrats of Texas

Rosemary_Lehmberg_Mugshot

Rosemary Lehmberg Mugshot.

The Democrats have indicted Governor Rick Perry for his efforts to bring integrity to the Texas Public Integrity Unit.

TPNN’s Matthew Burke reports, “Travis County, Texas District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg [D]  issued perhaps the most frivolous, vengeful, and politicized indictment of a politician on Friday. Lehmberg, who shockingly still runs the state’s Public Integrity  Unit, refused to resign from her position following her drunk driving conviction last year, forcing Texas Governor Rick Perry to use his line item veto power to cut funding to Lehmberg’s office. Texas law, as does several other states, gives the governor the authority to use the line item veto. Perry’s using it is not an abuse of power.”

Here are videos of Lehmberg during taken during her arrest for DUI and her conduct while in the Travis County jail.

VIDEO #1: Travis County Sheriff’s Deputy’s conduct a roadside sobriety test on Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg:

VIDEO #2: Travis County District Attorney Lemberg’s booking footage by KOKE FM on April 21, 2013.

RELATED ARTICLE: Confident Rick Perry slams ‘farce of a prosecution,’ vows to battle ‘abuse of power’

Ferguson, MO: MSM Once Again Furthers The Big Lie

Mary and I were driving home to Florida from working on the Joe Carr campaign in Tennessee when I heard the report on the radio. “Unarmed black youth shot by police.”

Why did the reporter think it relevant to mention the race of the youth shot by police in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri? Police shooting an unarmed youth is compelling without the racial component.

When blacks commit crimes, the mainstream media bends over backwards to avoid mentioning the criminals’ race. For example. When flash mobs were breaking out across America committing crimes of violence, looting and vandalism, the MSM refused to report that the perpetrators were black youths. The MSM’s excuse is reporting the race of criminals is unnecessarily provocative.

So why does the MSM not apply the same logic and caution in cases where the alleged attacker is white? Remember how quick and eager the MSM was to convict George Zimmerman in the court of public opinion?

To push its racist-white-man-shoots-unarmed-angelic-black-boy story line, the MSM referred to Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic”. They flooded TV with photographs of a much younger Trayvon Martin including one of him in his little league football uniform. The MSM did everything in its power to hide the truth that Martin was a 17 year old thug. A major broadcast network even doctored audio to portray Zimmerman as a racist.

Obviously, the MSM wanted racial turmoil, division and riots in the streets. The Left’s bible, “Rules for Radials” by Saul Alinsky says they win by creating chaos.

The mainstream media is fully committed to helping Obama implement his socialist/progressive agenda. Promoting the false narrative that America is a racist nation is extremely helpful to Obama’s purpose.

The MSM has been complicit in assisting the Democrats’ efforts to exploit Obama’s race to silence opposition to his unprecedented dictatorship.

The MSM jumps on every opportunity to further the big lie that blacks are victims of an eternally racist America. The big lie feeds white guilt, making them more receptive to the government redistributing wealth and pandering to minorities. The big lie also inspires blacks to hate successful whites, inspires violence against whites and creates an entitlement mindset in blacks.

Whites feeling guilty for being white and blacks feeling resentful and entitled equals more Americans submissive to government controls and likely to vote Democrat.

During the Trayvon Martin trial, Leftists were all over TV promoting the big lie that black males are routinely attacked and murdered by whites in America. Their claim is totally absurd. The facts prove quite the opposite. Statistics confirm that blacks kill blacks and black attacks against whites are 39 times more likely than vice versa.

Please note that this article is not about the shooting. I am merely pointing out the mainstream media’s agenda driven reporting of the incident.

Once again, the MSM has successfully ginned up racial hate, division and riots in the streets.

Texas: Dallas Silences “Impeach Obama” Message — Thomas More Law Center Files Lawsuit

Another American city is attempting to silence the free speech of “Overpasses for America” activists calling for the impeachment of President Obama and for government reforms such as border security. This time, the group’s message is being stifled by an ordinance adopted by the Dallas City Council on January 22, 2014, which imposes fines of up to $500 for certain expressive activities on pedestrian overpasses over designated highways.

The ordinance makes it an offense to engage in any conduct, including holding a sign, intended to distract a motorist, or wearing any clothing intended to attract the attention of the public.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, late yesterday afternoon filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Dallas ordinance on behalf of Overpasses for America (OfA) and its Texas State Leader, Valeria Villarreal. Joining TMLC as local co-counsel is Houston attorney, Jerad Najvar.

The lawsuit claims the ordinance violates the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble.

Click here to read entire Federal Lawsuit

Erin Mersino, TMLC Senior Trial Counsel, who is handling the case, commented, “This is another example of a city silencing the message of a certain viewpoint in a traditional public forum without legal justification.  Here, there is no history that Plaintiffs’ speech imposed any public safety threat.  Such an invalid restriction on free speech curtails all of our free speech freedoms and wrongfully imperils one of our inalienable rights as Americans.”

OfA is a non-partisan grassroots movement which spreads a message about the need for accountability amongst our nation’s leaders. The use of pedestrian overpasses effectively allows OfA members to reach a large and diverse audience. TMLC is currently representing two Plaintiffs in a case challenging a similar ordinance in the Town of Campbell, Wisconsin.

Before the challenged ordinance was adopted, OfA had held over 75 demonstrations on pedestrian overpasses in the Dallas area, frequently organizing the events in cooperation with the Dallas Police Department and a Director of Homeland Security in Dallas.

The ordinance was passed under the guise that it was necessary for traffic safety and the safety of police officers.  However, the lack of any real safety issue was highlighted during the council debate on the ordinance when the Dallas Chief of Police, pressed by Councilman Phillip Kingston, could not point to any instance in which a OfA protest caused an accident.  Nevertheless, the council adopted the ordinance, which took effect on January 27, 2014, by a 10-4 vote.

On March 1, 2014, with the cooperation of the Dallas Police Department and a Director of Homeland Security in Dallas, Villarreal and OfA-Dallas held a successful demonstration on the Northaven overpass over the Dallas North Tollway.

However, when Villarreal called the Dallas Police Department to inform them of OfA-Dallas’ plans to hold a demonstration on March 15, 2014, she was told that the police department was now obligated to enforce the city ordinance.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, stated:   “The viewpoints of a majority of Americans on crucial public issues are no longer expressed by their elected representatives.  The concerns of a majority of Americans seem to have little impact on the decisions made by politicians who are more concerned with appeasing lobbyists, special interest groups, and wealthy donors.  That’s why it’s so important to defend the free speech rights of grass roots organizations like Overpasses for America, whose members feel it’s their patriotic duty to stand for hours on these overpasses to get their message out and mobilize their fellow citizens.”

ABOUT THE THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.  It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America.  The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

VIDEO FROM FERGUSON, MO: All Blacks know how to do is “blame the police and white folks”

Blacks rioting and looting in Ferguson, Missouri continues for a fifth day. We learned last night from a Missouri resident that the riots are spreading to other suburban communities and that black rioters are throwing bricks off of overpasses along U.S. Highway 70, a main route through St. Louis, MO.

The Washington Post’s Sean Sullivan reports, “Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) called the situation in Ferguson, Mo., ‘deeply troubling’ late Wednesday and announced he would change his schedule in order to visit the city on Thursday, signaling a new, more intense level of engagement than in previous days.”

Missouri residents are concerned that the riots have gotten so out of hand that Governor Nixon needs to call out the National Guard. Some say Nixon, a Democrat, won’t because he fears aggravating rioting blacks, who are a large block of Democrat voters. After the Governor visits the area he may change his mind?

Jason DeWitt from Top Right News (TRN) posted a YouTube video of one black mans view of the riots. DeWitt writes:

TRN has covered the Ferguson Riots outside St. Louis over the past 2 days, as a peaceful protest over the shooting death of a Black man by a police officer spun out of control into a violent rage. Hundreds of looters ransacked dozens of stores, including Target and WalMart, and looted and burned down a QuikTrip. Rioters shot at police and even police helicopters in the madness.

[ … ]

But with Sharpton’s trademark chant of “no justice, no peace” about to reverberate from Missouri, one Black Facebook user didn’t want to hear a word of it.

In an epic rant as a Black man against the Black rioters of Ferguson, Johnathan Gentry unleashed a very different message: “We Need to Change as Black People.”

Watch this video commentary by Johnathan Gentry:

Trystin English a black women who was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri but now lives in Florida posted her perspective on the Ferguson riots on her Facebook page.

Watch Trystin talk about the blacks rioting and looting in Ferguson (WARNING: Graphic language): Video Post by Trystin English.

I was born and raised in the St. Louis area, have family there and went to high school in Ferguson-Florissant School District which has delayed opening of the school year until August 18th due to the riots.

Ayn Rand wrote, ““The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.” The slogan “no justice, no peace” is an uncontested absurdity which must be contested. It promotes violence over the rule of law. That is the official ideology of far to many blacks and far to many black leaders.

Johnathan Gentry understands this when he says “We Need to Change as Black People.”

RELATED VIDEO: There are real time posting on Twitter on the Ferguson riots by Antonio French. French is an Alderman of the 21st Ward in St. Louis. Go to here to view all of Alderman French’s videos. Here is just one posting:

10 Things You Need to Know About Boehner Suing Obama by Elizabeth Slattery

Last week, the House of Representatives voted to authorize Speaker John Boehner to file a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s failure to fully implement Obamacare. Specifically, the lawsuit will challenge the administration’s delay of the employer mandate—requiring many employers to provide health insurance or pay a fine—that was supposed to go into effect Jan. 1. It’s clear President Obama repeatedly has abused executive power to circumvent Congress and essentially rewrite the law, but this lawsuit still raises a host of questions.

Q: Can you sue the president?

Yes. Presidents enjoy immunity from lawsuits for civil damages resulting from their official acts, but they are not immune from all lawsuits. For example, the Supreme Court allowed Paula Jones’ suit for sexual harassment against President Clinton to proceed while he was in office. Further, members of Congress have filed dozens of lawsuits against presidents over the years. Most have been unsuccessful, usually because members fail to allege a sufficient injury. Since Boehner’s lawsuit will deal with implementing Obamacare, the suit likely will be brought against Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell and other executive branch officials charged with carrying out the law. It’s possible Obama won’t actually be named in the lawsuit.

Q: Who will represent the House in court?

The House’s Office of General Counsel routinely represents the House in legal disputes, such as suits to enforce congressional subpoenas or the Speech and Debate Clause. In the past, the House also has hired outside counsel, such as when the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to handle the Defense of Marriage Act litigation.

Q: How will this lawsuit be funded?

As with past lawsuits, the House will appropriate funds to pay for the litigation. The Committee on House Administration will make public quarterly statements in the Congressional Record detailing expenses.

Q: Does the Senate have a role?

The Senate probably is not required to join in the lawsuit. Under the Supreme Court’s precedents, members of Congress have standing to assert personal injuries or direct and concrete institutional injuries. In Coleman v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court found a group of state senators demonstrated a sufficient institutional injury even though the suit was brought by 26 members of one chamber.

Q: Why would the House sue when it has other remedies?

Boehner has determined filing a lawsuit will be the most effective way to rein in the executive branch. Other remedies do exist—mainly appropriations and impeachment—but they require the Senate’s involvement. The House could try to leverage appropriations to encourage the president to faithfully execute the law, but as Boehner has pointed out, the Democratic Senate could refuse to pass such an appropriations bill. Similarly, impeachment requires conviction by two-thirds of the Senate. Although Boehner’s lawsuit may face obstacles, it would not require Senate concurrence.

Q: What happens if Obama loses?

Courts routinely enforce statutory mandates, such as the express deadlines in Obamacare that the executive branch has “relaxed.” Concerns the president would ignore the courts likely are unfounded. Even though Obama has complained about his losses, “There is no case in which he completely refused to follow a Supreme Court ruling he lost,” said Todd Gaziano,executive director of the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Washington, D.C., center.

Q: What happens if Boehner loses?

Before a court considers the merits of Boehner’s lawsuit, it first must decide whether the House has standing to bring this suit. If a court determines Boehner failed to establish Article III standing (a constitutional requirement for all lawsuits), it would result in dismissal of the case, but it would not mean the court agrees the president acted properly. If the suit is dismissed, it’s possible a private party may file suit, although the lack of private parties is one reason Boehner says his lawsuit is necessary. After members of Congress failed in their challenge to the Line Item Veto Act in Raines v. Byrd in 1997, the Supreme Court struck down the law when the City of New York and a group of private parties challenged it the next year.

Q: Didn’t Bush issue more executive orders than Obama?

Yes, but that is irrelevant to Boehner’s lawsuit. Executive orders are directives issued by the president to run the various parts of the executive branch—ranging from George Washington’s proclamation calling on the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion to Harry Truman’s order desegregating the armed forces. Most executive orders throughout our nation’s history are perfectly appropriate and non-controversial. Boehner’s lawsuit does not address Obama’s use of executive orders per se. Instead, the suit will challenge his failure to faithfully execute the law. The American Presidency Project, which has cataloged every executive order, says Bush issued 291 executive orders, Obama has issued 183 to date, and Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the most with more than 3,500.

Q: Will this open the floodgates for Congress and the Executive Branch to turn to the courts to resolve their disputes?

No. There have been plenty of lawsuits brought by members of Congress against presidents and other executive branch officials in the past. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear that courts should not entertain “sore loser” suits where members of Congress sue over a vote they lost. This suit will not change the judiciary’s reluctance to get involved in political disputes between the other branches of government.

Q: Now that the House has authorized the suit, what happens next?

The Wall Street Journal reports the House “isn’t expected to bring the suit for at least another month.” The House Office of General Counsel and any outside lawyers that will be involved in the case likely are deciding which court would be most advantageous and drafting the complaint which will lay out specific allegations as well as the relief the House will seek in its lawsuit.

Peter Bigelow contributed to preparing this Q&A.

ABOUT ELIZABETH SLATTERY

Portrait of Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery @EHSlattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read her research.

Charlie Crist: Using the power of the pen for evil — a case study

Each Florida Governor swears to enforce the laws of the land. The governors role is as chief administrator and not law maker. In Florida a duly elected Governor takes the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of Governor on which I am now about to enter, so help me God.

Both Rick Scott and Charlie Crist have taken this oath. But have they kept true to their oath? That is the question.

When Crist was governor he used the “power of the pen” via Executive Orders to bypass the legislature and impose his “green agenda” upon Floridians. The EPA.gov website has archived examples of former Governor Crist issuing Executive Orders to impose his agenda:

  • In May 2008 the state legislature passed an energy bill that included a prohibition on the state DEP from adopting GHG auto standards without legislative approval. On July 13, 2007, Florida Governor Charlie Crist issued Executive Order 07-126, which requires the Department of Management Services to only approve the purchase of new vehicles with the greatest fuel efficiency in a given class as required for that vehicle to minimize GHG emissions. The Governor also issued Executive Order 07-127 (July 13, 2007), which adopted California’s GHG standards for motor vehicles.
  • On July 13, 2007, Florida Governor Charlie Crist issued Executive Order 07-127, which established statewide GHG emission reduction targets of 2000 levels by 2017, 1990 levels by 2025, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
  • Executive Order 07-128, signed by Governor Crist on July 13, 2007, creates a new “Action Team on Energy and Climate Change,” to develop a “comprehensive energy and climate change action plan” that would lay out policy options and suggest strategies for meeting the orders’ goals and provide analysis of whether to implement mandates, voluntary standards, or market-based regulatory mechanisms.

When he signed these EOs gas prices rose and five coal fired energy plants closed causing electric bills to rise.

It appears Crist is up to his old proven tactics of bypassing the legislature in order to implement his personal beliefs upon all Floridians. According Brandon Larrabee and Dara Kam of The News Service of Florida report:

When former Gov. Charlie Crist floated a campaign promise this week to use executive orders on state contractors to boost wages for some workers and to bar discrimination against gay and transgender Floridians, Republican condemnation quickly rolled in.

GOP leaders in the Legislature issued a joint statement comparing the Republican-turned-Democrat Crist unfavorably to President Barack Obama and saying the proposal amounted to a power grab.

“Crist is lifting a dangerous page from President Obama’s playbook, saying he will do an end-run around the people’s elected representatives and single-handedly mandate policies through executive order,” said the statement, signed by the outgoing and incoming House speakers and Senate presidents. ” … Florida needs a governor who will work with the Legislature and not force his personal agenda on Floridians with the stroke of a pen.”

Larrabee and Kam point out that in 2011 Governor Rick Scott also used the power of his pen requiring all of Florida’s agencies and contractors to use the federal e-verify system when hiring. E-verify is a Department of Homeland Security system. According to the DHS website, “U.S. law requires companies to employ only individuals who may legally work in the United States – either U.S. citizens, or foreign citizens who have the necessary authorization. This diverse workforce contributes greatly to the vibrancy and strength of our economy, but that same strength also attracts unauthorized employment.”

Governor Scott used the power of his pen to enforce the laws of the land. Charlie Crist has a history of using the power of the pen to force his ideology upon all Floridians. That is a key difference between Rick Scott and Charlie Crist.

Yes, Sue Our Lawless President!

“Today, however, President Obama has taken the concept of discretion and so distorted it, and has taken the obligation of faithful enforcement and so rejected it, that his job as chief law enforcer has become one of incompetent madness or chief lawbreaker. Time after time, in areas as disparate as civil liberties, immigration, foreign affairs and health care, the President has demonstrated a propensity for rejecting his oath and doing damage to our fabric of liberty that cannot easily be undone by a successor.”

That is Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, a Fox News commentator, writing in the July 31 edition of The Washington Times.

Americans and many around the world are increasingly fearful of a President who has demonstrated no regard for the checks and balances of our incredible Constitution, the oldest in the world that still functions to protect individual rights and which sets forth the divisions between our legislative, judicial and executive departments of government.

Congress, however, will not impeach President Obama, but the House will sue him on the basis of just one of the many examples of his dictatorial use of executive orders to ignore the power of the legislative branch to pass laws he took an oath to enforce. He has unilaterally and illegally altered the Affordable Care Act 27 times, his signature legislation that former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said Congress had to pass “so we can find out what is in it.” No Republican member of Congress voted for this two-thousand-page-plus law, passed late in the evening of Christmas Eve, 2009.

The decision to impeach a President is essentially a political one and Republicans understand that the impeachment of President Obama would be interpreted by nearly half of the voters as an attack on a President they support. There have only been two impeachment actions in U.S. history and both have failed.

The nation is significantly divided regarding the President and Congress has been in gridlock as Democrats as the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has refused to let more than 300 House bills sent to the Senate be debated and voted upon.

Suing the President has ample history. It is hardly “a stunt” as Democrats have labeled it. New York Democrat Louise Slaughter called it “preposterous”, but failed to mention that eight years earlier, in 2006, she was a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats against George W. Bush!

In a 1939 case, Coleman v Miller, the Supreme Court granted standing to members of the legislature to sue. Two years ago, four Democratic members of the House filed a suit against Vice President Biden in his capacity as head of the Senate, challenging as unconstitutional the filibuster. Other Democratic legislators had filed lawsuits claiming standing in 2001, in 2002, in 2006, and in 2007. The judiciary concluded their cases had little merit.

In a July 30 Wall Street Journal commentary, David B. Rivken who served in the Reagan and Bush administration’s Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office, and Elizabeth Price Foley, a constitutional law professor at Florida International University, wrote:

“These barriers between the branches are not formalities—they were designed to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in one branch, As the Supreme Court explained in New York v. United States (1992), the ‘Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.”

“Congress has the exclusive authority to make law because lawmaking requires pluralism, debate and compromise, the essence of representative government…Litigation in federal court is an indispensable way to protect all branches of government against encroachment on their authority,”

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” said President Obama. In April, a poll by PolitiFact of the Tampa Bay Times, revealed that 63%–nearly two thirds—of respondents agreed that President Obama lies at least some of the time on important issues and an additional 20% said he lies every now and then. Only 15% believed the President is completely truthful. Democrats were 39% of the 1,021 registered voters polled. Republicans were 38% and independents were 20%,

The President has lied so routinely that this character flaw is likely to play a role in the forthcoming midterm elections on November 4. When you add in his lawlessness and his leadership failures that have created a far more dangerous and divided world, Americans are likely to vote for change in Congress.

That’s how democracy works and how our Constitutional system works. Suing the President is just one part of it.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

As Much as You’d Like To, Don’t Fall Into the Impeachment Trap

You just have to hand it to the Democrats. They are not incompetent – evil, yes — but not incompetent. They’ve now successfully made the word “impeachment” verboten in America. In fact, they’ve managed to turn it into political heyday as they celebrate fundraising records based on generating fear among their base over something that’s not happening. They’ve been successful in forcing Americans to accept a lawless president, all for political gain. The Democrats have manipulated America in such a way that elevates one man to be indeed greater than the rule of law in our Constitutional Republic.

To borrow a word from Oprah Winfrey, brilliant.

So now President Barack Hussein Obama can march on and even issue an executive order granting amnesty to the illegal aliens who have defied our sovereign border — basically remaking the demographic balance of America in his ideological favor.

And in doing so, dares the GOP — actually any law-abiding American — to do anything to stop him. We are politically teetering on the verge of dictatorship as a result of paralyzing fear. Democrats have effectively outmaneuvered the fail safe measures entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers to replace the rule of law with the rule of one.

So what do we do to stop it? Simple, we must do that which the Democrats truly fear: ensure they lose control of the U.S. Senate and expand the GOP House majority. Obama foments the idea of “impeachment” and therefore it’s not what he really fears. He would want nothing more than for his final two years in office to be a repeat of the first two. We cannot allow that to happen. As well, this must leak over to the 2016 presidential election. We must ensure voters are reminded of Democrats’ insatiable hunger for absolute rule and exile them from the White House for at least 24 years.

American people must come to understand Barack Hussein Obama cares less about America than his own accumulation of power. In other words, this bear must be caged. Obama’s incessant unilateral actions violate our fundamental separation of powers and idea of coequal branches of government.

Do not take the bait from Obama and the Democrats, even though we all know his unilateral negotiations with a terrorist organization to release five senior members of the Taliban truly represent a high crime and misdemeanor.

But let’s outsmart Obama as he creates the ruse of a constitutional crisis for his political gain. I appreciate Obama’s useful idiot Dan Pfeiffer coming out and singing the accolades on impeachment. As Politico reported, “White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer warned last Friday that the possibility of an impeachment of the president shouldn’t be discarded.”

In addition, it’s a big moneymaker! As the Washington Post reports, The Democrats’ congressional campaign arm pulled in $2.1 million in online donations over the weekend – the best four-day haul of the current election cycle – largely propelled by fundraising pitches tied to speculation that House Republicans could pursue the impeachment of President Obama.

There’s nothing better than an arrogant enemy who overplays his hand. And that is exactly what the Democrats have just done!

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Miami, FL: Court upholds firing of teacher who cheated, while accomplice is returned to the classroom

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014, Department of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Judge Cathy Sellers issued a Recommended Order upholding the decision of Miami-Dade County Public Schools to fire Mr. Emmanuel Fleurantin for his part in the massive test cheating scandal, Adobegate, at Miami Norland Senior High School during the 2011-2012 school year.

The School Board of Miami-Dade County will either formally accept or reject the Recommended Order at the August 6 or September 3, 2014 School Board meetings.

What is disturbing is that there were two teachers involved doing the exact same thing in the exact same room at the exact same time (for the most part) and one is fired (Mr. Emmanuel Fleurantin) while the other (Mrs. Brenda Muchnick) is still on the job at Miami Norland Senior High School while the whistle blower, Trevor Colestock, is still displaced from Norland and is not allowed to return there.

With the assistance of cheating, undertaken by Mr. Emmanuel Fleurantin and Mrs. Brenda Muchnick, Miami Norland’s school grade went from a “C” for the 2010-11 school year to an “A” for the 2011-12 school year.

The Miami-Dade OIG Final Report concluded that, “Miami Norland has benefited in the form of attaining a higher school grade and may have received financial compensation or other benefit resulting from its high pass rate on the industry certification exams” (page 13).

As a result, total federal funds (SIG, RTTT) given out due to a grade influenced by cheating was $100,560; the total state funds per FSRP was between $130,000- $140,000; the total overall combined federal and state incentive funds were $230,560- $240,560.

Each teacher at Miami Norland Senior High School received $1730.41 from all three payouts.

On October 16, 2013, the Miami-Dade School Board voted to terminate Mr. Emmanuel Fleurantin for his role in Adobegate, and rightfully so, and his case was forwarded to DOAH court.

On November 19, 2013, the Miami-Dade School Board voted to suspend Mrs. Brenda Muchnick for 30 working days without pay for her role in Adobegate, which boggles the mind.  She accepted this punishment and therefore it was not referred to DOAH.

When Mr. Fleurantin appeared alone on the D55 item of the School Board Agenda on October 16, 2013, something seemed amiss and it was common sense that something was in the works given the disparity in actions taken against them.

Most crimes, such as theft and homicide, have varying degrees; test cheating does not and state law is straightforward and clear.  In any given instance of test cheating, a role is a role; there is no distinguishing a major role from a minor role. Either one was involved or they were not.

Both Mr. Fleurantin and Mrs. Muchnick, according to the Miami-Dade OIG Final Report, allegedly “knowingly and willfully” violated test security rules irrespective of quantity of students in their respective roles.

When one reads that document and the Department of Administrative Hearings brief, issued by the School Board Attorney on January 8, 2014, justifying Mr. Fleurantin’s termination, one can reasonably conclude that Mrs. Muchnick is equally culpable and a reasonable person would think her employment was up for termination as well.

A reasonable person would conclude that the logic and conclusion of Judge Sellers’ Recommended Order pertaining to Mr. Fleurantin would be applicable to Mrs. Muchnick as well.

Enid Weisman, the Chief Capital Human Officer for M-DCPS, is responsible for disciplinary practices in Miami-Dade County Public Schools.

She led the effort to remove Mr. Colestock from Norland; fired Mr. Fleurantin while reinstating Mrs. Muchnick at Norland though they both were charged by M-DCPS with the same offenses word for word

A confidential source said Mrs. Weisman told the School Board that the disparities in punishment came about as a “technicality” pertaining to Mrs. Muchnick.

According to another confidential source, the “technicality” was that Mrs. Muchnick told District personnel prior to the October 16, 2013, School Board meeting that she was going to claim that school administrators directed her and Mr. Fleurantin to provide students the answers to the Adobe Photoshop and Dreamweaver industry certification exams in order to enhance the “back 800 points” of the school grade and improve the school grade overall.

As a result, she was removed from the October 16, 2013, D55 Item of the School Board Agenda (thus leaving only Mr. Fleurantin), deemed to be under further investigation, and was placed on the D55 Item of the School Board Agenda of the November 19, 2013, meeting with a more lenient and favorable punishment- 30 days without pay.

The crime is bad enough; like Watergate and other similar scandals, the cover-up is far more worse.

A reasonable person may well conclude that the disparity in punishment between Mr. Fleurantin and Mrs. Muchnick suggests a cover-up and the illegal and retaliatory actions taken against Mr. Colestock are meant to keep the Norland faculty and staff quiet and to keep the truth from coming out and exposing other improprieties relating to Adobegate.

Furthermore, the inaction of federal and state officials to investigate encourages such misdeeds and criminal behavior and shortchanges teachers, students, and the general public alike.