Former NFL quarterback Fran Tarkenton rips into black players who took the knee and says conservatives in America are being denied a voice
BarkGrowlBite
January 31, 2018
During a wide-ranging interview with USA Today last week, NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Fran Tarkenton ripped into Colin Kaepernick and the other black NFL players who refused to stand for the National Anthem. The 77-year-old former Minnesota Vikings and New York Giants quarterback made it quite clear that the protests were unforgivable. Tarkenton said:
“Do I think they should be able to demonstrate? I do. But when they play the national anthem and that flag is up there, if we cannot respect that, what do we respect in America?”
Tarkenton also complained that conservatives in America are being denied a voice. He said:
“We're silent because if you're not a Democrat, progressive liberal and you disagree with the progressive liberal's viewpoint, then you're going to be spit at, hit, ridiculed and booed. So you know what we do? We don't talk. We're a silent majority.”
The Hall of Famer also slammed Saturday Night Live for ridiculing President Trump.
Tarkenton may be 77-years old, but his brains haven’t been scrambled like so many other former NFL players his age.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
WHOOPS. THE WHOOPS WASN'T A WHOOPS AFTER ALL
by Bob Walsh
It seems that the "accidental" incoming missile alert in Hawaii was in fact sent deliberately and not accidentally. The operator who hit the button did not notice that all the messages were marked that they were in fact tests and asserted that he was not clued in that they were doing internal testing of the "this is not a test" messages at the facility. There were five people in the room when this happened and it seems that none of the other operators in the room noticed that the guy sent the OMG RUN FOR YOUR LIVES message. I guess they don't talk much there.
The guy who hit the button has been fired and the head of the Hawaii emergency response system has offered his resignation.
Whoops.
It seems that the "accidental" incoming missile alert in Hawaii was in fact sent deliberately and not accidentally. The operator who hit the button did not notice that all the messages were marked that they were in fact tests and asserted that he was not clued in that they were doing internal testing of the "this is not a test" messages at the facility. There were five people in the room when this happened and it seems that none of the other operators in the room noticed that the guy sent the OMG RUN FOR YOUR LIVES message. I guess they don't talk much there.
The guy who hit the button has been fired and the head of the Hawaii emergency response system has offered his resignation.
Whoops.
MANDATORY "THIS SHIT WILL KILL YOU" LABEL UNDER FURTHER REVIEW
by Bob Walsh
Back in 2015 the Board of Stupidvisors of the People's Republic of San Francisco unanimously voted to require a "THIS SHIT WILL KILL YOU" warning label on sugared soda sold within the City and County of San Francisco. It was originally supposed to kick in July 2016, but was put on hold by the federal courts. It was then flat-ass barred by the court on the basis that it was one-sided, misleading and fucking stupid.
The same court, the 9th U. S. Circuit, has just granted a rehearing to the city before a full 11 member panel of the court.
Big Brother knows what's good for you.
As an aside, Tyson Foods just bought a SF based research operation that is working to grow food protein in vats without the need of actually having animals to product beef, chicken, kangaroo, cat, etc. I think the organization was originally called Soylent Green but they changed the name to something less radioactive. I wonder how the commie bastards that run S. F. will react to that?
Back in 2015 the Board of Stupidvisors of the People's Republic of San Francisco unanimously voted to require a "THIS SHIT WILL KILL YOU" warning label on sugared soda sold within the City and County of San Francisco. It was originally supposed to kick in July 2016, but was put on hold by the federal courts. It was then flat-ass barred by the court on the basis that it was one-sided, misleading and fucking stupid.
The same court, the 9th U. S. Circuit, has just granted a rehearing to the city before a full 11 member panel of the court.
Big Brother knows what's good for you.
As an aside, Tyson Foods just bought a SF based research operation that is working to grow food protein in vats without the need of actually having animals to product beef, chicken, kangaroo, cat, etc. I think the organization was originally called Soylent Green but they changed the name to something less radioactive. I wonder how the commie bastards that run S. F. will react to that?
‘SEEKING SEX FROM MARRIED MEN’ CRAIGLIST AD LANDS WIFE OF CHEATING HUSBAND IN TROUBLE
Houston woman trolled her husband's mistress by 'posting an ad on Craigslist about her seeking sex from married men'
By Emily Crane
Daily Mail
January 30, 2018
A Houston woman has been charged after she trolled her husband's mistress by posting an ad on Craigslist in her name that said she was seeking sex from married men.
Tamantha Johnson, 48, is accused of posing as her husband's girlfriend and posting the advertisement online in July last year.
It read that she was requesting 'married men come over and service her on a regular basis' and also included her name, age and photo.
The woman allegedly received more than 100 calls and messages from people in response to the ad.
She also was sent unwanted nude photos from some men, according to court documents.
Johnson initially denied having anything to do with the Craigslist ad, but investigators allegedly linked her to the posting.
Authorities said the ad was traced back to a computer where Johnson worked.
She allegedly later admitted that she was trying to get the woman to admit to having an affair with Johnson's husband.
Johnson and her husband, who works as a divorce attorney, filed for divorce in April last year.
The victim had been represented by Johnson's husband in her own divorce.
Johnson has been charged with online harassment and impersonation.
She is also facing other charges of harassment for a separate incident in which she threatened the same woman via text message back in August.
By Emily Crane
Daily Mail
January 30, 2018
A Houston woman has been charged after she trolled her husband's mistress by posting an ad on Craigslist in her name that said she was seeking sex from married men.
Tamantha Johnson, 48, is accused of posing as her husband's girlfriend and posting the advertisement online in July last year.
It read that she was requesting 'married men come over and service her on a regular basis' and also included her name, age and photo.
The woman allegedly received more than 100 calls and messages from people in response to the ad.
She also was sent unwanted nude photos from some men, according to court documents.
Johnson initially denied having anything to do with the Craigslist ad, but investigators allegedly linked her to the posting.
Authorities said the ad was traced back to a computer where Johnson worked.
She allegedly later admitted that she was trying to get the woman to admit to having an affair with Johnson's husband.
Johnson and her husband, who works as a divorce attorney, filed for divorce in April last year.
The victim had been represented by Johnson's husband in her own divorce.
Johnson has been charged with online harassment and impersonation.
She is also facing other charges of harassment for a separate incident in which she threatened the same woman via text message back in August.
HOW TO NOT WIN FRIENDS AND HOW TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE TO HATE COPS
Georgia cops killed pet dog and then forced the distraught owner to saw off his pooch's HEAD with a knife or be arrested, lawsuit claims
By Emily Crane
Daily Mail
January 30, 2018
Two Georgia police officers killed a pet dog and then allegedly forced the owner to saw off the animal's head with a knife or risk being arrested, a new lawsuit claims.
Joe Goodwin and his girlfriend Tosha Dacon filed a lawsuit last week after their two-year-old pitbull cross Big Boy was shot dead outside their home in Crawford County two months ago.
The couple claim Crawford County sheriff's deputy Wesley Andrew Neesmith killed their beloved pooch after going to their home on December 1 to investigate reports the dog had bitten a neighbor.
The lawsuit claims fellow deputy James Hollis then ordered a distraught Goodwin to behead the dog with a knife.
'Under extreme emotional duress and distress, and under threat of incarceration and physical harm, Plaintiff Goodwin was forced to decapitate the dog with a knife,' the lawsuit reads.
After he was forced to decapitate Big Boy, the two officers allegedly ordered Goodwin to take the animal's head to the Crawford County Health Department.
The lawsuit says that Goodwin was too 'emotionally and mentally distraught to comply' so his partner Dacon had to do it.
Goodwin, who had filmed part of the confrontation and posted it on Facebook at the time, claimed that the officers told him the dog had been shot after it lunged at a deputy.
He said the officers claimed that the dog's head had to be removed to be tested for rabies - even though Big Boy was fully vaccinated against the deadly disease.
Testing for rabies can only be done via a brain autopsy.
Goodwin claims that when he initially refused to remove his dog's head, the officers threatened to have him arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.
They allegedly would not let him leave to retrieve the dog's vaccination paperwork.
At one point while he was filming, Hollis can be heard saying: 'We asked you to remove the dog's head. And you're refusing, right?'
Goodwin, who still appeared to be in shock, replied: 'I ain't got a... knife to cut the head off'.
He claims the officers gave him the option to call a vet and pay for the head to be removed, but he said he couldn't afford to do that procedure.
Goodwin said he complied because he feared he would be shot otherwise.
Once he finally reluctantly agreed, his girlfriend had to go and retrieve a kitchen knife to carry out the horrific task.
Goodwin was then allegedly forced to saw and hack away at his pet's neck with the small knife until he could remove his head.
The lawsuit claims he and his girlfriend continue to endure 'great physical and mental pain and suffering' and it has required counseling.
Goodwin claims he lost his job as a result of the stress caused by the incident.
Hollis was placed on paid administrative leave while an investigation was carried out. Neesmith resigned from his position in mid-January.
In addition to Hollis and Neesmith, the lawsuit also names Sheriff Lewis Walker.
The couple are suing them for $75,000 as compensation for their pain and suffering.
EDITOR’S NOTE: In all my years as a cop and criminal justice professor, I’ve never heard of anything like this. What in the fuck were those cops thinking? The shooting of the dog may or may not have been justified, but ordering the man to sever his pet’s head? Holy shit!
By Emily Crane
Daily Mail
January 30, 2018
Two Georgia police officers killed a pet dog and then allegedly forced the owner to saw off the animal's head with a knife or risk being arrested, a new lawsuit claims.
Joe Goodwin and his girlfriend Tosha Dacon filed a lawsuit last week after their two-year-old pitbull cross Big Boy was shot dead outside their home in Crawford County two months ago.
The couple claim Crawford County sheriff's deputy Wesley Andrew Neesmith killed their beloved pooch after going to their home on December 1 to investigate reports the dog had bitten a neighbor.
The lawsuit claims fellow deputy James Hollis then ordered a distraught Goodwin to behead the dog with a knife.
'Under extreme emotional duress and distress, and under threat of incarceration and physical harm, Plaintiff Goodwin was forced to decapitate the dog with a knife,' the lawsuit reads.
After he was forced to decapitate Big Boy, the two officers allegedly ordered Goodwin to take the animal's head to the Crawford County Health Department.
The lawsuit says that Goodwin was too 'emotionally and mentally distraught to comply' so his partner Dacon had to do it.
Goodwin, who had filmed part of the confrontation and posted it on Facebook at the time, claimed that the officers told him the dog had been shot after it lunged at a deputy.
He said the officers claimed that the dog's head had to be removed to be tested for rabies - even though Big Boy was fully vaccinated against the deadly disease.
Testing for rabies can only be done via a brain autopsy.
Goodwin claims that when he initially refused to remove his dog's head, the officers threatened to have him arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.
They allegedly would not let him leave to retrieve the dog's vaccination paperwork.
At one point while he was filming, Hollis can be heard saying: 'We asked you to remove the dog's head. And you're refusing, right?'
Goodwin, who still appeared to be in shock, replied: 'I ain't got a... knife to cut the head off'.
He claims the officers gave him the option to call a vet and pay for the head to be removed, but he said he couldn't afford to do that procedure.
Goodwin said he complied because he feared he would be shot otherwise.
Once he finally reluctantly agreed, his girlfriend had to go and retrieve a kitchen knife to carry out the horrific task.
Goodwin was then allegedly forced to saw and hack away at his pet's neck with the small knife until he could remove his head.
The lawsuit claims he and his girlfriend continue to endure 'great physical and mental pain and suffering' and it has required counseling.
Goodwin claims he lost his job as a result of the stress caused by the incident.
Hollis was placed on paid administrative leave while an investigation was carried out. Neesmith resigned from his position in mid-January.
In addition to Hollis and Neesmith, the lawsuit also names Sheriff Lewis Walker.
The couple are suing them for $75,000 as compensation for their pain and suffering.
EDITOR’S NOTE: In all my years as a cop and criminal justice professor, I’ve never heard of anything like this. What in the fuck were those cops thinking? The shooting of the dog may or may not have been justified, but ordering the man to sever his pet’s head? Holy shit!
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
GOOD NIGHT TO CHECK OUT THE MOON.
by Bob Walsh
Early Wednesday there is supposed to be a "super blue blood moon" visible shortly before dawn on the West Coast. This is a convergance of a blue moon, a super moon and a lunar eclipse. It hasn't happened in 152 years.
A blue moon is simply a second full moon in the same calendar month. No big deal. It happens every 30 moths or so. A super moon occurs when the moon is full when it is also at it's closest to earth. Also not a big deal. Happens every 14 or 15 months, The super moon appears to be about 7% larger than a "standard" full moon. The combination of the two, along with the lunar eclipse that will take place, is indeed rare.
If you happen to be up around 0400 Wednesday and the sky isn't overcast, check it out.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Yes, by all means get up and look at the moon. But as a lie-member of the Flat Earth Society, I can tell you the so-called moon landings were a hoax. The moon is made out of cheese. Every once in a while it gets moldy, and that accounts for the blue color.
Early Wednesday there is supposed to be a "super blue blood moon" visible shortly before dawn on the West Coast. This is a convergance of a blue moon, a super moon and a lunar eclipse. It hasn't happened in 152 years.
A blue moon is simply a second full moon in the same calendar month. No big deal. It happens every 30 moths or so. A super moon occurs when the moon is full when it is also at it's closest to earth. Also not a big deal. Happens every 14 or 15 months, The super moon appears to be about 7% larger than a "standard" full moon. The combination of the two, along with the lunar eclipse that will take place, is indeed rare.
If you happen to be up around 0400 Wednesday and the sky isn't overcast, check it out.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Yes, by all means get up and look at the moon. But as a lie-member of the Flat Earth Society, I can tell you the so-called moon landings were a hoax. The moon is made out of cheese. Every once in a while it gets moldy, and that accounts for the blue color.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
by Bob Walsh
Early Sunday a large sign appeared over the top of the Yerba Buena Tunnel where the Bay Bridge heads for San Francisco. The sign said DANGER SANCTUARY CITY AHEAD IDENTITY EVROPA.
The Identity Evropa is (allegedly) a White Supremacist group. The sign was quickly removed, though it isn't quite clear who removed it.
Early Sunday a large sign appeared over the top of the Yerba Buena Tunnel where the Bay Bridge heads for San Francisco. The sign said DANGER SANCTUARY CITY AHEAD IDENTITY EVROPA.
The Identity Evropa is (allegedly) a White Supremacist group. The sign was quickly removed, though it isn't quite clear who removed it.
ANTI-TRUMP TRASH AT THE GRAMMYS
Several recording artists and Hillary Clinton read passages from Michael Wolff’s Trump-trashing book
BarkGrowlBite
January 30, 2018
UN Ambassador Nikki Haley took aim at the Grammys for politicizing the music award show with anti-Trump trash.
The award show had a segment in which several recording artists and Hillary Clinton read passages from Michael Wolff’s book “Fire and Fury.” Wolff’s book was an obvious attempt to destroy the Trump presidency.
Hillary’s passage, which she personally chose to read, was:
“He [Trump] had a longtime fear of being poisoned. One reason why he liked to eat at McDonalds. No one knew he was coming and the food was safely pre-made.”.
The whole Grammy Awards show seemed to have an anti-Trump theme. Trump’s immigration stance was a repeated target.
Referring to the reading from Wolff’s book, Haley tweeted:
“I have always loved the Grammys but to have artists read the Fire and Fury book killed it. Don’t ruin great music with trash. Some of us love music without the politics thrown in it.”
Haley already had a beef with Wolff because near the end of the book he hinted that she had an affair with Trump, something she vehemently denies.
The Trump-trashing at the Grammys just goes to show how obsessed Hollywood and the music industry are with their desire to dump Trump.
BarkGrowlBite
January 30, 2018
UN Ambassador Nikki Haley took aim at the Grammys for politicizing the music award show with anti-Trump trash.
The award show had a segment in which several recording artists and Hillary Clinton read passages from Michael Wolff’s book “Fire and Fury.” Wolff’s book was an obvious attempt to destroy the Trump presidency.
Hillary’s passage, which she personally chose to read, was:
“He [Trump] had a longtime fear of being poisoned. One reason why he liked to eat at McDonalds. No one knew he was coming and the food was safely pre-made.”.
The whole Grammy Awards show seemed to have an anti-Trump theme. Trump’s immigration stance was a repeated target.
Referring to the reading from Wolff’s book, Haley tweeted:
“I have always loved the Grammys but to have artists read the Fire and Fury book killed it. Don’t ruin great music with trash. Some of us love music without the politics thrown in it.”
Haley already had a beef with Wolff because near the end of the book he hinted that she had an affair with Trump, something she vehemently denies.
The Trump-trashing at the Grammys just goes to show how obsessed Hollywood and the music industry are with their desire to dump Trump.
IMPRISONED FOR MURDER, PAROLED, MURDERS AGAIN, ABOUT TO MEET HIS MAKER
Texas set to execute man, 64, who killed his ex-girlfriend and stabbed her 11-year-old son while he was out on parole for murdering his wife
Associated Press and Ashley Collman
Daily Mail
January 29, 2018
Carol Lynn Thomas Hall knew William Rayford had spent time in prison for killing his estranged wife but defended her own relationship with him, telling relatives she believed it was her Christian duty to give the parolee a second chance.
The Dallas woman who ran Sunday school at her church became Rayford's second murder victim in an attack eerily similar to his first killing.
Rayford, 64, is now set to die Tuesday for Hall's 1999 slaying. He will be the nation's second inmate executed this year, both in Texas. Another is set for Thursday in Texas as well.
Attorneys for Rayford are trying to halt his execution, arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that his death sentence was tainted because his lawyer, while questioning a prison expert during the punishment phase of Rayford's trial in 2000, was deficient for introducing the subject of race and whether race is a factor in prison violence.
The witness also was wrong in testifying the racial makeup of a prison 'is linked to the amount of violence within that unit, and by obvious implication, that people like Mr. Rayford - a black man - are the cause of the violence,' Nadia Wood, a Dallas-based federal public defender, told the high court.
Lawyers also argued in an appeal to a federal judge in Dallas that a federal court earlier improperly denied money for his appeals, that Hall's slaying may not have qualified for a capital murder charge and that Rayford suffered brain damage from lead poisoning because he grew up near a toxic site and carries lead residue from old gunshot wounds.
Prosecutors said arguments about race in the appeal mischaracterized the trial testimony, drew conclusions not supported in the trial record and did not encourage jurors to consider Rayford's race when considering his punishment.
Evidence 'more than established' Rayford kidnapped Hall while trying to kill her, supporting the capital murder charge, and arguments about lead poisoning were based on a 'vague, general and nebulous conclusion' by a defense expert, Jay Clendenin, an assistant Texas attorney general, said in a court filing.
Evidence showed Hall, who knew Rayford since they both grew up in a Dallas housing project, had broken up with him two months earlier. He entered her home in the Oak Cliff area of south Dallas on November 16, 1999, using a key she didn't know he had. Their subsequent argument turned violent. Her son, Benjamin, then 11, was hit on the head and suffered a punctured lung from the stab wound.
Benjamin testified at Rayford's trial how his mother had run from the home with Rayford in pursuit, how Rayford stabbed him in the back while he tried to protect his mom and how he watched as she was carried by Rayford toward the drainage pipe where her body eventually was found.
Benjamin said he was able to find a neighbor.
'I asked her, "could I please go to her house because a man stabbed me,"' he told jurors. 'I couldn't hardly breathe.'
Evidence showed Hall, 44, was beaten, stabbed repeatedly and strangled. Her body was found 300 feet inside the drainage pipe behind her home.
Police responding to a call about the attack arrested Rayford at the scene. His clothing and face was splattered with Hall's blood. He told an officer Hall could be found 'in the hole ... up in the sewer, in the water.'
Rayford in 1986 was convicted of murder for fatally stabbing his estranged wife, Gail Rayford, in front of their four children. She'd obtained a court order four days earlier to keep him away.
Rayford was sentenced to 23 years in prison for her slaying but was released after eight years under a then Texas law that allowed release of some prisoners as the state struggled with prison crowding. He'd been on parole for five years when Hall was killed.
Texas is also slated to executive 62-year-old John David Battaglia on Thursday fo rthe May 2001 shooting deaths of his six- and nine-year-old daughters.
Associated Press and Ashley Collman
Daily Mail
January 29, 2018
Carol Lynn Thomas Hall knew William Rayford had spent time in prison for killing his estranged wife but defended her own relationship with him, telling relatives she believed it was her Christian duty to give the parolee a second chance.
The Dallas woman who ran Sunday school at her church became Rayford's second murder victim in an attack eerily similar to his first killing.
Rayford, 64, is now set to die Tuesday for Hall's 1999 slaying. He will be the nation's second inmate executed this year, both in Texas. Another is set for Thursday in Texas as well.
Attorneys for Rayford are trying to halt his execution, arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that his death sentence was tainted because his lawyer, while questioning a prison expert during the punishment phase of Rayford's trial in 2000, was deficient for introducing the subject of race and whether race is a factor in prison violence.
The witness also was wrong in testifying the racial makeup of a prison 'is linked to the amount of violence within that unit, and by obvious implication, that people like Mr. Rayford - a black man - are the cause of the violence,' Nadia Wood, a Dallas-based federal public defender, told the high court.
Lawyers also argued in an appeal to a federal judge in Dallas that a federal court earlier improperly denied money for his appeals, that Hall's slaying may not have qualified for a capital murder charge and that Rayford suffered brain damage from lead poisoning because he grew up near a toxic site and carries lead residue from old gunshot wounds.
Prosecutors said arguments about race in the appeal mischaracterized the trial testimony, drew conclusions not supported in the trial record and did not encourage jurors to consider Rayford's race when considering his punishment.
Evidence 'more than established' Rayford kidnapped Hall while trying to kill her, supporting the capital murder charge, and arguments about lead poisoning were based on a 'vague, general and nebulous conclusion' by a defense expert, Jay Clendenin, an assistant Texas attorney general, said in a court filing.
Evidence showed Hall, who knew Rayford since they both grew up in a Dallas housing project, had broken up with him two months earlier. He entered her home in the Oak Cliff area of south Dallas on November 16, 1999, using a key she didn't know he had. Their subsequent argument turned violent. Her son, Benjamin, then 11, was hit on the head and suffered a punctured lung from the stab wound.
Benjamin testified at Rayford's trial how his mother had run from the home with Rayford in pursuit, how Rayford stabbed him in the back while he tried to protect his mom and how he watched as she was carried by Rayford toward the drainage pipe where her body eventually was found.
Benjamin said he was able to find a neighbor.
'I asked her, "could I please go to her house because a man stabbed me,"' he told jurors. 'I couldn't hardly breathe.'
Evidence showed Hall, 44, was beaten, stabbed repeatedly and strangled. Her body was found 300 feet inside the drainage pipe behind her home.
Police responding to a call about the attack arrested Rayford at the scene. His clothing and face was splattered with Hall's blood. He told an officer Hall could be found 'in the hole ... up in the sewer, in the water.'
Rayford in 1986 was convicted of murder for fatally stabbing his estranged wife, Gail Rayford, in front of their four children. She'd obtained a court order four days earlier to keep him away.
Rayford was sentenced to 23 years in prison for her slaying but was released after eight years under a then Texas law that allowed release of some prisoners as the state struggled with prison crowding. He'd been on parole for five years when Hall was killed.
Texas is also slated to executive 62-year-old John David Battaglia on Thursday fo rthe May 2001 shooting deaths of his six- and nine-year-old daughters.
POLAND ACTIVELY AND WILLINGLY COLLABORATED WITH THE NAZIS
Polish legislation absolving Poland of Holocaust crimes sparks ire \\
By Eldad Beck, Shlomo Cesana and Gideon Allon
Israel Hayom
January 28, 2018
Israel on Saturday called on Poland to amend a bill approved this week by Polish lawmakers that would make it illegal to suggest Poland bore any responsibility for crimes against humanity committed by Nazi Germany on its soil.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he instructed his ambassador to meet with Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki to express Israel's dismay at the bill, which would make using phrases like "Polish death camps" punishable by up to three years in prison.
"The law is baseless; I strongly oppose it. Poland cannot change history and the Holocaust cannot be denied. I have instructed Israel's ambassador to Poland to meet with the Polish prime minister this evening and express to him my strong position against the law," Netanyahu said in a statement.
President Reuven Rivlin, noting that exactly 73 years had passed since the Auschwitz death camp on Polish soil was liberated, quoted a former Polish president's remarks on how history could not be faked and the truth could not be hidden.
"The Jewish people, the State of Israel and the entire world must ensure that the Holocaust is recognized for its horrors and atrocities. Among the Polish people, there were those who aided the Nazis in their crimes. Every crime, every offense, must be condemned. They must be examined and exposed," Rivlin said.
The lower house of the Polish parliament on Friday passed the bill, but it still needs the approval from Poland's Senate and president. However, it marks a dramatic step by the country's current nationalist government to target anyone who tries to undermine its official stance that Poles were heroes during the war, not Nazi collaborators who committed heinous crimes.
Poland's Deputy Justice Minister Patryk Jaki, who authored the bill, also took to Twitter to say the legislation was not directed against Israel.
"Important Israeli politicians and media are attacking us for the bill ... On top of that they claim that Poles are 'co-responsible' for the Holocaust," he said, adding that "this is proof how necessary this bill is."
The Polish government said the bill did not aim to limit freedom to research or discuss the Holocaust or to restrict freedom of artistic activity related to the issue.
Poles have fought for years against the use of phrases like "Polish death camps," which suggest the Polish state was at least partly responsible for the camps where millions of people, mostly Jews, were killed by Nazi Germany. The camps were built and operated by the Nazis after they invaded Poland in 1939.
At Auschwitz, at a ceremony marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Israeli Ambassador to Poland Anna Azari abandoned a prepared speech to criticize the bill, saying that "everyone in Israel was revolted by this news."
But Morawiecki, who also spoke at the ceremony, stressed that Poles helped Jews while risking their own lives, noting that some 7,000 had been recognized by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem. He further suggested that the Polish sacrifices have not been adequately acknowledged.
"Jews, Poles, and all victims should be guardians of the memory of all who were murdered by German Nazis. Auschwitz-Birkenau is not a Polish name, and Arbeit Macht Frei [work sets you free] is not a Polish phrase," Morawiecki said later on Twitter, referring to the slogan appearing on the gate at Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry said the deputy Polish ambassador to Israel had been summoned for a clarification.
Netanyahu, who is acting foreign minister, has yet to decide whether to summon Azari back from Warsaw for consultations or take steps against Poland on the matter, a ministry official said.
In a sign of the sensitivities on both sides, Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid, the son of a survivor, got into a heated Twitter spat Saturday with the Polish Embassy in Israel.
"I utterly condemn the new Polish law which tries to deny Polish complicity in the Holocaust. It was conceived in Germany but hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered without ever meeting a German soldier. There were Polish death camps and no law can ever change that," Lapid wrote.
That sparked the embassy to respond: "Your unsupportable claims show how badly Holocaust education is needed, even here in Israel."
"My grandmother was murdered in Poland by Germans and Poles," Lapid retorted. "I don't need Holocaust education from you. We live with the consequences every day in our collective memory. Your embassy should offer an immediate apology."
To which the embassy responded: "Shameless."
Today's Poles have been raised on stories of their people's wartime suffering and heroism. Many react viscerally when confronted with the growing body of scholarship about Polish involvement in the killing of Jews.
The Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum said it opposed the bill, even though it said Poland was justified in objecting to the term "Polish death camps," which it called a misrepresentation.
"Restrictions on statements by scholars and others regarding the Polish people's direct or indirect complicity with the crimes committed on their land during the Holocaust are a serious distortion," Yad Vashem said.
For decades, Polish society avoided discussing the killing of Jews by civilians or denied that anti-Semitism motivated the slayings, blaming all atrocities on the Germans.
A turning point was the publication in 2000 of "Neighbors," a book by Polish-American sociologist Jan Tomasz Gross, which explored the murder of Jews by their Polish neighbors in the village of Jedwabne. The book resulted in widespread soul-searching and official state apologies.
But since the conservative and nationalistic Law and Justice party consolidated power in 2015, it has sought to stamp out discussions and research on the topic. It demonized Gross and investigated whether he had slandered Poland by asserting that Poles killed more Jews than they killed Germans during the war.
Holocaust researchers have collected ample evidence of Polish villagers who murdered Jews fleeing the Nazis. According to one scholar at Yad Vashem, of the 160,000 to 250,000 Jews who escaped and sought help from fellow Poles, only 10-20% survived. The rest were rejected, informed upon or killed by rural Poles, Tel Aviv University scholar Havi Dreifuss has found.
Polish government spokeswoman Joanna Kopcinska wrote on Twitter that the legislation aimed "to show the truth about the terrible crimes committed on Poles, Jews, and other nations that were in the 20th century victims of brutal totalitarian regimes - German Nazi regime and Soviet communism."
__________
POLISH ATROCITIES CANNOT BE ERASED
BY Chaim Kozienicki
Even 73 years removed from the war, the Poles, it seems, were and still are anti-Semites. I was 11 years old when the war broke out and at 12 I entered the Lodz Ghetto. The Poles would snitch to the Germans about who was Jewish, willingly pointing us out to turn us in to the German soldiers.
They had a sixth sense about who was Jewish or not. One night, I was waiting with my brother in the bread line. When I was second in line, one of the Poles called to a German soldier and pointed at me, he said "Jude!" in German. The soldier pulled me out of the line, kicked me in the behind and I returned home without bread. From the Lodz Ghetto we were transferred to Auschwitz and from there to the Stutthof concentration camp until our liberation.
The Polish law in question is preposterous. The Poles were full partners with the Nazis. Like former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said back in the day: The Poles suck anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk. Even in the first grade I remember my Polish classmates shouting "Jews to Palestine, Jews out."
The crime the Poles committed against the Jewish people cannot be erased with a stupid law. History recounts different facts. They took the Jews' property and belongings and the only thing they gave back after the war were the synagogues. The Poles were cruel to Jews who tried returning to their homes, many times killing them. That was after the war. Over 1,000 people were murdered at the hands of Poles after the war, completely irrespective of the German extermination camps.
I first heard about this ridiculous and demented law around a year and a half after the current Polish regime ascended to power. With or without the law, they cannot shed responsibility for their crimes – Poland actively, willingly collaborated with the Germans. People tend to associate Auschwitz with Germany because it was a Nazi concentration camp, but it was on Polish soil.
Today, as a living witness who tells his story to students, I often travel to Poland and feel the anti-Semitism. I know their language, I look like one of them, and they don't know I am Jewish. I hear their anti-Semitic undertones. To this day I can still hear the mother admonishing her son who doesn't want to eat: "I'll sell you to the Jews or the Gypsies." But I go back there, time and again, because giving testimony is important.
Despite their best efforts to bury their Nazi past – they cannot outrun history. Just last month I was at Yad Vashem speaking to Polish army colonels; I told them, in their own language, my life story and how we suffered from the anti-Semitism their country, about the wrongs done to us. They admitted it was all true. They bowed their heads. So now what, will these colonels be arrested? I delivered a similar speech in Poland in front of the mayor of Lodz. Will those who listened to me in humiliated silence now be arrested as well? It is absurd.
Because they won't ever be able to erase the horrors they perpetrated, not while Holocaust survivors are still alive, and not as long there are Jews in the world who can tell the story.
EDITOR’S NOTE: So, some 7,000 Poles have been recognized by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem. My hat is off to the Poles who risked imprisonment by hiding Jews from the Nazis. But this fails to take into account that Poles by the tens-of-thousands eagerly pointed out Jews to the Nazis and helped the SS round them up for shipment to the Polish Death Camps. And Poland’s government collaborated with the Nazis by having its police assist in the roundup.
By Eldad Beck, Shlomo Cesana and Gideon Allon
Israel Hayom
January 28, 2018
Israel on Saturday called on Poland to amend a bill approved this week by Polish lawmakers that would make it illegal to suggest Poland bore any responsibility for crimes against humanity committed by Nazi Germany on its soil.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he instructed his ambassador to meet with Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki to express Israel's dismay at the bill, which would make using phrases like "Polish death camps" punishable by up to three years in prison.
"The law is baseless; I strongly oppose it. Poland cannot change history and the Holocaust cannot be denied. I have instructed Israel's ambassador to Poland to meet with the Polish prime minister this evening and express to him my strong position against the law," Netanyahu said in a statement.
President Reuven Rivlin, noting that exactly 73 years had passed since the Auschwitz death camp on Polish soil was liberated, quoted a former Polish president's remarks on how history could not be faked and the truth could not be hidden.
"The Jewish people, the State of Israel and the entire world must ensure that the Holocaust is recognized for its horrors and atrocities. Among the Polish people, there were those who aided the Nazis in their crimes. Every crime, every offense, must be condemned. They must be examined and exposed," Rivlin said.
The lower house of the Polish parliament on Friday passed the bill, but it still needs the approval from Poland's Senate and president. However, it marks a dramatic step by the country's current nationalist government to target anyone who tries to undermine its official stance that Poles were heroes during the war, not Nazi collaborators who committed heinous crimes.
Poland's Deputy Justice Minister Patryk Jaki, who authored the bill, also took to Twitter to say the legislation was not directed against Israel.
"Important Israeli politicians and media are attacking us for the bill ... On top of that they claim that Poles are 'co-responsible' for the Holocaust," he said, adding that "this is proof how necessary this bill is."
The Polish government said the bill did not aim to limit freedom to research or discuss the Holocaust or to restrict freedom of artistic activity related to the issue.
Poles have fought for years against the use of phrases like "Polish death camps," which suggest the Polish state was at least partly responsible for the camps where millions of people, mostly Jews, were killed by Nazi Germany. The camps were built and operated by the Nazis after they invaded Poland in 1939.
At Auschwitz, at a ceremony marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Israeli Ambassador to Poland Anna Azari abandoned a prepared speech to criticize the bill, saying that "everyone in Israel was revolted by this news."
But Morawiecki, who also spoke at the ceremony, stressed that Poles helped Jews while risking their own lives, noting that some 7,000 had been recognized by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem. He further suggested that the Polish sacrifices have not been adequately acknowledged.
"Jews, Poles, and all victims should be guardians of the memory of all who were murdered by German Nazis. Auschwitz-Birkenau is not a Polish name, and Arbeit Macht Frei [work sets you free] is not a Polish phrase," Morawiecki said later on Twitter, referring to the slogan appearing on the gate at Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry said the deputy Polish ambassador to Israel had been summoned for a clarification.
Netanyahu, who is acting foreign minister, has yet to decide whether to summon Azari back from Warsaw for consultations or take steps against Poland on the matter, a ministry official said.
In a sign of the sensitivities on both sides, Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid, the son of a survivor, got into a heated Twitter spat Saturday with the Polish Embassy in Israel.
"I utterly condemn the new Polish law which tries to deny Polish complicity in the Holocaust. It was conceived in Germany but hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered without ever meeting a German soldier. There were Polish death camps and no law can ever change that," Lapid wrote.
That sparked the embassy to respond: "Your unsupportable claims show how badly Holocaust education is needed, even here in Israel."
"My grandmother was murdered in Poland by Germans and Poles," Lapid retorted. "I don't need Holocaust education from you. We live with the consequences every day in our collective memory. Your embassy should offer an immediate apology."
To which the embassy responded: "Shameless."
Today's Poles have been raised on stories of their people's wartime suffering and heroism. Many react viscerally when confronted with the growing body of scholarship about Polish involvement in the killing of Jews.
The Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum said it opposed the bill, even though it said Poland was justified in objecting to the term "Polish death camps," which it called a misrepresentation.
"Restrictions on statements by scholars and others regarding the Polish people's direct or indirect complicity with the crimes committed on their land during the Holocaust are a serious distortion," Yad Vashem said.
For decades, Polish society avoided discussing the killing of Jews by civilians or denied that anti-Semitism motivated the slayings, blaming all atrocities on the Germans.
A turning point was the publication in 2000 of "Neighbors," a book by Polish-American sociologist Jan Tomasz Gross, which explored the murder of Jews by their Polish neighbors in the village of Jedwabne. The book resulted in widespread soul-searching and official state apologies.
But since the conservative and nationalistic Law and Justice party consolidated power in 2015, it has sought to stamp out discussions and research on the topic. It demonized Gross and investigated whether he had slandered Poland by asserting that Poles killed more Jews than they killed Germans during the war.
Holocaust researchers have collected ample evidence of Polish villagers who murdered Jews fleeing the Nazis. According to one scholar at Yad Vashem, of the 160,000 to 250,000 Jews who escaped and sought help from fellow Poles, only 10-20% survived. The rest were rejected, informed upon or killed by rural Poles, Tel Aviv University scholar Havi Dreifuss has found.
Polish government spokeswoman Joanna Kopcinska wrote on Twitter that the legislation aimed "to show the truth about the terrible crimes committed on Poles, Jews, and other nations that were in the 20th century victims of brutal totalitarian regimes - German Nazi regime and Soviet communism."
__________
POLISH ATROCITIES CANNOT BE ERASED
BY Chaim Kozienicki
Even 73 years removed from the war, the Poles, it seems, were and still are anti-Semites. I was 11 years old when the war broke out and at 12 I entered the Lodz Ghetto. The Poles would snitch to the Germans about who was Jewish, willingly pointing us out to turn us in to the German soldiers.
They had a sixth sense about who was Jewish or not. One night, I was waiting with my brother in the bread line. When I was second in line, one of the Poles called to a German soldier and pointed at me, he said "Jude!" in German. The soldier pulled me out of the line, kicked me in the behind and I returned home without bread. From the Lodz Ghetto we were transferred to Auschwitz and from there to the Stutthof concentration camp until our liberation.
The Polish law in question is preposterous. The Poles were full partners with the Nazis. Like former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said back in the day: The Poles suck anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk. Even in the first grade I remember my Polish classmates shouting "Jews to Palestine, Jews out."
The crime the Poles committed against the Jewish people cannot be erased with a stupid law. History recounts different facts. They took the Jews' property and belongings and the only thing they gave back after the war were the synagogues. The Poles were cruel to Jews who tried returning to their homes, many times killing them. That was after the war. Over 1,000 people were murdered at the hands of Poles after the war, completely irrespective of the German extermination camps.
I first heard about this ridiculous and demented law around a year and a half after the current Polish regime ascended to power. With or without the law, they cannot shed responsibility for their crimes – Poland actively, willingly collaborated with the Germans. People tend to associate Auschwitz with Germany because it was a Nazi concentration camp, but it was on Polish soil.
Today, as a living witness who tells his story to students, I often travel to Poland and feel the anti-Semitism. I know their language, I look like one of them, and they don't know I am Jewish. I hear their anti-Semitic undertones. To this day I can still hear the mother admonishing her son who doesn't want to eat: "I'll sell you to the Jews or the Gypsies." But I go back there, time and again, because giving testimony is important.
Despite their best efforts to bury their Nazi past – they cannot outrun history. Just last month I was at Yad Vashem speaking to Polish army colonels; I told them, in their own language, my life story and how we suffered from the anti-Semitism their country, about the wrongs done to us. They admitted it was all true. They bowed their heads. So now what, will these colonels be arrested? I delivered a similar speech in Poland in front of the mayor of Lodz. Will those who listened to me in humiliated silence now be arrested as well? It is absurd.
Because they won't ever be able to erase the horrors they perpetrated, not while Holocaust survivors are still alive, and not as long there are Jews in the world who can tell the story.
EDITOR’S NOTE: So, some 7,000 Poles have been recognized by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem. My hat is off to the Poles who risked imprisonment by hiding Jews from the Nazis. But this fails to take into account that Poles by the tens-of-thousands eagerly pointed out Jews to the Nazis and helped the SS round them up for shipment to the Polish Death Camps. And Poland’s government collaborated with the Nazis by having its police assist in the roundup.
Monday, January 29, 2018
HOW TO WIN FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE
by Bob Walsh
Robby Anderson, 24, is a receiver for the New York Jets. On Friday he was stopped by the cops doing 105 in a 45 zone and driving erratically. He was finally stopped and placed under arrest. He resisted being placed in the police car and informed the arresting officer that he was going to find his wife and "fuck her in the eye" as soon as he got out of jail. He made other threats towards the officer and his family. He also made a point of telling the officer how much money he had and how angry he was at the officer for "ruining his fun."
Last May Anderson was arrested for assaulting an officer at a music festival.
Anderson is facing several felony charges in this matter, including threating the officer's family, which is a crime in Florida. Considering his prior from last year I wonder how much bail he will face, and what, if anything, his employer will have to say.
Robby Anderson, 24, is a receiver for the New York Jets. On Friday he was stopped by the cops doing 105 in a 45 zone and driving erratically. He was finally stopped and placed under arrest. He resisted being placed in the police car and informed the arresting officer that he was going to find his wife and "fuck her in the eye" as soon as he got out of jail. He made other threats towards the officer and his family. He also made a point of telling the officer how much money he had and how angry he was at the officer for "ruining his fun."
Last May Anderson was arrested for assaulting an officer at a music festival.
Anderson is facing several felony charges in this matter, including threating the officer's family, which is a crime in Florida. Considering his prior from last year I wonder how much bail he will face, and what, if anything, his employer will have to say.
KEN STARR ARGUES TRUMP NOT OBSTRCTING JUSTICE
But the special counsel during the Clinton presidency considers lying to the American people by the president is a serious issue that has to be explored
Here is a transcript from Sunday’s ABC This Week in which host Martha Raddatz interviewed former special counsel Ken Starr and ABC’s chief legal analyst Dan Abrams:
RADDATZ: Now let's turn back to the Mueller investigation and bring in Ken Starr, who served as the independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton, and ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams.
I want to start with you, Mr. Starr. Do these revelations make an obstruction of justice charge more likely?
KEN STARR, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: I don't think so. The president has every -- and Senator Graham said it very well. He can fire Jim Comey or he can ask for Mueller to be fired for any reason. I have a different view in terms of what would constitute obstruction of justice. The president's power is extremely broad, as long as he's not engaged in discrimination or accepting bribes and the like.
I have a very different perspective and much more robust view of presidential power than many of the folks who have been speaking to this. But that having been said, it would have been extremely unwise -- and Senator Graham once again hit the nail on the head.
It would have signaled all -- it would have been Armageddon. So I’m very glad that the president took Don McGhan’s -- if -- if -- if the story is true, took the advice. This -- the president is not just frustrated, as Senator Graham said, he’s a fighter. His instinct is to fight. If you’re an enemy -- and I’m afraid that’s the way he intends to view Mr. Mueller or at least some of the people around Mr. Mueller -- then he’s going to -- he’s going to fight. He’s going to lash out.
The question is does that really constitute a crime. And I don’t think so.
RADDATZ: OK, I know that the prosecutors would have to show corrupt intent, so I don’t understand why this doesn’t show that. Explain that.
STARR: He’s very open about it. I don’t like this guy. (inaudible) he just said (ph) look, he’s trying to ruin my presidency. I have the right to engage in self defense. I don’t see that as corrupt. I just don’t. Corruption -- in fact, no one’s suggested, to my knowledge, that Richard Nixon engaged in a crime by firing Archibald Cox. He did engage in crimes.
Obstruction of justice, but that had to do with hush money and the like. There’s no suggestion of that. We just have a Trump Tower set of ethics here and that is what we’re seeing in the president. I hope that he will control that more in the remaining years of his term. But I think we’re seeing here business tactics. I just don’t see the corruption. He’s so transparent. He tells everyone look, I want to get rid of this guy.
He’s a -- you know, he’s a thorn in my flesh.
RADDATZ: OK, Dan Abrams. I know you’re shaking your head. I -- I tend to think you don’t agree with that.
DAN ABRAMS, CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS ANCHOR, ABC NEWS: Yes. I mean, the question isn’t does firing Robert Mueller -- would firing Robert Mueller be a crime. That’s not the question. The question is would firing Robert Mueller -- does trying to fire Robert Mueller potentially become a piece in an obstruction case. You put that together, potentially, with the firing of James Comey.
Why? These conversations that he had with the director of the CIA, the director of National Intelligence, at the time, the director of the FBI. And if the goal in all of those cases was simply to end the investigation on him and his campaign, that’s a different issue. So I think to just simply say in a vacuum, "The president can fire or order the firing of Robert Mueller if he so chooses, that’s not a crime." That’s true but it’s also not the relevant question here.
RADDATZ: Mr. Starr, what about that pattern of behavior? We’ve been talking about that all morning.
STARR: I think the pattern is totally consistent with I don’t like the guy. He is in my face and I just don’t see that as corruption. And I don’t think that those who have been saying this is obstruction of justice have come forward with persuasive authority and have not addressed what I view as a fundamental question, the power of the presidency. Now, the power of the presidency has a huge check.
I don’t think it should be the criminal (ph) law unless there’s bribery and that sort of thing. It should be the Congress of the United States. We wildly over-criminalize and I just disagree. I have great respect for Dan, but I just disagree with this whole approach of let’s criminalize everything.
ABRAMS: But it’s not even about --
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: It’s the same thing that you did when you were the independent counsel, right? I mean, you basically created articles of impeachment based on law. I’m not saying that should happen here. Right? We have to wait and see. But you basically created a series of articles of impeachment based on legal standards and you said, "This is where I think the law was violated."
So it’s inevitably combined when you’re talking about what the legal standard is and what the potential impact would be. And I think to simply suggest that the president can fire these people for whatever reason he wants isn’t the standard that you yourself would apply.
STARR: Dan, with all due respect, re-read the referral. I drafted no articles of impeachment, for starters. But the referral that we made with respect to President Clinton had to do with perjury and intimidating witnesses or encouraging witnesses to lie. Now, if we’re talking about encouraging witnesses to lie, then we have -- in (ph) a lawsuit. There’s been no lawsuit that I know about. This was an interference with exactly what Senator Graham was talking about.
Namely, the rule of law. I think what we’re talking about here is something entirely different. It’s a horse of a different color. And --
RADDATZ: Mr. Starr -- Mr. Starr, I want to -- I want to jump in, here. I want to ask you about -- you talked about lying, you talked about President Clinton. I want to ask you about President Trump’s public denial that he’d -- he had even thought of firing Robert Mueller.
One of the reasons you cited is grounds for impeachment against President Clinton was Clinton’s public denials of having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. You wrote the president made and caused to be made false statements to the American people about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky by publicly and emphatically stating in January 1998 that I did not have sexual relations with that woman, and these allegations are false.
The president also effectively delayed a possible congressional inquiry. This represents substantial and credible (ph) information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. If the reports are correct that President Trump sought to have Mueller fired, then his public denial would be false.
So would that be grounds for impeachment?
STARR: I think lying to the American people is a serious issue that has to be explored. I take lying to the American people very, very seriously. So absolutely, I think – what Dan was talking about was this effort to get rid of the investigation.
You’re now talking about something called lying to the American people, and I think that is something that Bob Mueller should look at.
RADDATZ: Dan, a final though?
ABRAMS: Yes, I mean I just can’t imagine that – that Mr. Starr doesn’t believe that there is some sort of investigation on a president that if that president wanted to end it, just for that reason, that he wouldn’t say that’s a potential legal slash potential impeachment problem.
There has to be a level which you can reach where you say the president isn’t allowed to just end investigations into him just because that’s presidential power.
RADDATZ: OK, we’re going to have to leave it there.
STARR: Dan – no, but Dan –
RADDATZ: Very quickly, go ahead.
STARR: Dan has made my point. Dan has made my point. We’re talking about impeachment, we’re not talking about the court house. That’s my distinction.
RADDATZ: OK, thanks very much to both of you.
Here is a transcript from Sunday’s ABC This Week in which host Martha Raddatz interviewed former special counsel Ken Starr and ABC’s chief legal analyst Dan Abrams:
RADDATZ: Now let's turn back to the Mueller investigation and bring in Ken Starr, who served as the independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton, and ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams.
I want to start with you, Mr. Starr. Do these revelations make an obstruction of justice charge more likely?
KEN STARR, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: I don't think so. The president has every -- and Senator Graham said it very well. He can fire Jim Comey or he can ask for Mueller to be fired for any reason. I have a different view in terms of what would constitute obstruction of justice. The president's power is extremely broad, as long as he's not engaged in discrimination or accepting bribes and the like.
I have a very different perspective and much more robust view of presidential power than many of the folks who have been speaking to this. But that having been said, it would have been extremely unwise -- and Senator Graham once again hit the nail on the head.
It would have signaled all -- it would have been Armageddon. So I’m very glad that the president took Don McGhan’s -- if -- if -- if the story is true, took the advice. This -- the president is not just frustrated, as Senator Graham said, he’s a fighter. His instinct is to fight. If you’re an enemy -- and I’m afraid that’s the way he intends to view Mr. Mueller or at least some of the people around Mr. Mueller -- then he’s going to -- he’s going to fight. He’s going to lash out.
The question is does that really constitute a crime. And I don’t think so.
RADDATZ: OK, I know that the prosecutors would have to show corrupt intent, so I don’t understand why this doesn’t show that. Explain that.
STARR: He’s very open about it. I don’t like this guy. (inaudible) he just said (ph) look, he’s trying to ruin my presidency. I have the right to engage in self defense. I don’t see that as corrupt. I just don’t. Corruption -- in fact, no one’s suggested, to my knowledge, that Richard Nixon engaged in a crime by firing Archibald Cox. He did engage in crimes.
Obstruction of justice, but that had to do with hush money and the like. There’s no suggestion of that. We just have a Trump Tower set of ethics here and that is what we’re seeing in the president. I hope that he will control that more in the remaining years of his term. But I think we’re seeing here business tactics. I just don’t see the corruption. He’s so transparent. He tells everyone look, I want to get rid of this guy.
He’s a -- you know, he’s a thorn in my flesh.
RADDATZ: OK, Dan Abrams. I know you’re shaking your head. I -- I tend to think you don’t agree with that.
DAN ABRAMS, CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS ANCHOR, ABC NEWS: Yes. I mean, the question isn’t does firing Robert Mueller -- would firing Robert Mueller be a crime. That’s not the question. The question is would firing Robert Mueller -- does trying to fire Robert Mueller potentially become a piece in an obstruction case. You put that together, potentially, with the firing of James Comey.
Why? These conversations that he had with the director of the CIA, the director of National Intelligence, at the time, the director of the FBI. And if the goal in all of those cases was simply to end the investigation on him and his campaign, that’s a different issue. So I think to just simply say in a vacuum, "The president can fire or order the firing of Robert Mueller if he so chooses, that’s not a crime." That’s true but it’s also not the relevant question here.
RADDATZ: Mr. Starr, what about that pattern of behavior? We’ve been talking about that all morning.
STARR: I think the pattern is totally consistent with I don’t like the guy. He is in my face and I just don’t see that as corruption. And I don’t think that those who have been saying this is obstruction of justice have come forward with persuasive authority and have not addressed what I view as a fundamental question, the power of the presidency. Now, the power of the presidency has a huge check.
I don’t think it should be the criminal (ph) law unless there’s bribery and that sort of thing. It should be the Congress of the United States. We wildly over-criminalize and I just disagree. I have great respect for Dan, but I just disagree with this whole approach of let’s criminalize everything.
ABRAMS: But it’s not even about --
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: It’s the same thing that you did when you were the independent counsel, right? I mean, you basically created articles of impeachment based on law. I’m not saying that should happen here. Right? We have to wait and see. But you basically created a series of articles of impeachment based on legal standards and you said, "This is where I think the law was violated."
So it’s inevitably combined when you’re talking about what the legal standard is and what the potential impact would be. And I think to simply suggest that the president can fire these people for whatever reason he wants isn’t the standard that you yourself would apply.
STARR: Dan, with all due respect, re-read the referral. I drafted no articles of impeachment, for starters. But the referral that we made with respect to President Clinton had to do with perjury and intimidating witnesses or encouraging witnesses to lie. Now, if we’re talking about encouraging witnesses to lie, then we have -- in (ph) a lawsuit. There’s been no lawsuit that I know about. This was an interference with exactly what Senator Graham was talking about.
Namely, the rule of law. I think what we’re talking about here is something entirely different. It’s a horse of a different color. And --
RADDATZ: Mr. Starr -- Mr. Starr, I want to -- I want to jump in, here. I want to ask you about -- you talked about lying, you talked about President Clinton. I want to ask you about President Trump’s public denial that he’d -- he had even thought of firing Robert Mueller.
One of the reasons you cited is grounds for impeachment against President Clinton was Clinton’s public denials of having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. You wrote the president made and caused to be made false statements to the American people about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky by publicly and emphatically stating in January 1998 that I did not have sexual relations with that woman, and these allegations are false.
The president also effectively delayed a possible congressional inquiry. This represents substantial and credible (ph) information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. If the reports are correct that President Trump sought to have Mueller fired, then his public denial would be false.
So would that be grounds for impeachment?
STARR: I think lying to the American people is a serious issue that has to be explored. I take lying to the American people very, very seriously. So absolutely, I think – what Dan was talking about was this effort to get rid of the investigation.
You’re now talking about something called lying to the American people, and I think that is something that Bob Mueller should look at.
RADDATZ: Dan, a final though?
ABRAMS: Yes, I mean I just can’t imagine that – that Mr. Starr doesn’t believe that there is some sort of investigation on a president that if that president wanted to end it, just for that reason, that he wouldn’t say that’s a potential legal slash potential impeachment problem.
There has to be a level which you can reach where you say the president isn’t allowed to just end investigations into him just because that’s presidential power.
RADDATZ: OK, we’re going to have to leave it there.
STARR: Dan – no, but Dan –
RADDATZ: Very quickly, go ahead.
STARR: Dan has made my point. Dan has made my point. We’re talking about impeachment, we’re not talking about the court house. That’s my distinction.
RADDATZ: OK, thanks very much to both of you.
CELEBRITIES, ATHLETES AND PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE IMPORTANT
By Trey Rusk
Running Code 3
January 27, 2018
There are some actors and athletes who I admire for their craft. There is not one celebrity or athlete that I would take advice from on current events.
Whenever I hear an actor state his or her opinion on world affairs or politics, I take it with a grain of salt. Why? Because their opinion on anything other than their craft is useless.
I went to the grocery store yesterday and I didn't ask my butcher what he thought about religion, politics, abortion or racism. Why? My butcher is not an expert on any of these topics. He cuts and wraps meat. That's his job.
Had I been standing in line behind say, Henry Kissinger, I might have asked him his opinion about the U.S. Embassy being moved to Jerusalem. I consider Henry Kissinger an expert in the field of world affairs.
I also wouldn't consider Clint Eastwood or John Wayne to be experts on world affairs. In fact, I thought Clint Eastwood looked idiotic at the Republican Convention. Thus I wouldn't give a hoot in hell what their opinion would be on something other than acting or old western wear. I enjoyed most of their movies but just because I like their acting doesn't mean I am swayed by their comments on anything.
People like Rosie O'Donnell and Joyce Behar are in the same boat as far as I'm concerned. That's why I don't care what they have to say. When I hear someone get upset because an actor espouses his or her views on a hot button topic, I think to myself, the only person showing their ignorance is you. Why would anyone let a celebrity get under their skin about a topic they, the actor knows nothing about.
I don't Twitter or Instagram because I really don't care what people I don't know write about.
However, the media seems to care so I still get to hear what James Woods thinks about someone else and it irritates me. Not because James Woods twittered something, but because the media thinks his view is important enough to broadcast.
By the way, James Woods is one of my favorite actors, but he is not particularly smarter than my butcher on world affairs.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I think my barber is smart on world affairs and politics. That’s because I cut my own hair.
Running Code 3
January 27, 2018
There are some actors and athletes who I admire for their craft. There is not one celebrity or athlete that I would take advice from on current events.
Whenever I hear an actor state his or her opinion on world affairs or politics, I take it with a grain of salt. Why? Because their opinion on anything other than their craft is useless.
I went to the grocery store yesterday and I didn't ask my butcher what he thought about religion, politics, abortion or racism. Why? My butcher is not an expert on any of these topics. He cuts and wraps meat. That's his job.
Had I been standing in line behind say, Henry Kissinger, I might have asked him his opinion about the U.S. Embassy being moved to Jerusalem. I consider Henry Kissinger an expert in the field of world affairs.
I also wouldn't consider Clint Eastwood or John Wayne to be experts on world affairs. In fact, I thought Clint Eastwood looked idiotic at the Republican Convention. Thus I wouldn't give a hoot in hell what their opinion would be on something other than acting or old western wear. I enjoyed most of their movies but just because I like their acting doesn't mean I am swayed by their comments on anything.
People like Rosie O'Donnell and Joyce Behar are in the same boat as far as I'm concerned. That's why I don't care what they have to say. When I hear someone get upset because an actor espouses his or her views on a hot button topic, I think to myself, the only person showing their ignorance is you. Why would anyone let a celebrity get under their skin about a topic they, the actor knows nothing about.
I don't Twitter or Instagram because I really don't care what people I don't know write about.
However, the media seems to care so I still get to hear what James Woods thinks about someone else and it irritates me. Not because James Woods twittered something, but because the media thinks his view is important enough to broadcast.
By the way, James Woods is one of my favorite actors, but he is not particularly smarter than my butcher on world affairs.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I think my barber is smart on world affairs and politics. That’s because I cut my own hair.
THAT LITTLE DAMN JEW LIED TO THE KINDHEARTED CAMP DOCTOR
'I'd never lied in my life but I fooled the Angel of Death': Holocaust survivor reveals how he escaped Auschwitz gas chambers by outwitting Josef Mengele, one of Nazi Germany's most notorious sadists
By Jake Wallis Simons
Daily Mail
January 27, 2018
A Holocaust survivor has revealed how he escaped the Auschwitz gas chambers by outwitting Dr Josef Mengele, known as the ‘Angel of Death’.
Leslie Kleinman, 88, whose concentration camp number is still tattooed on his forearm, has told MailOnline for the first time about the heart-stopping encounter with one of Nazi Germany’s most notorious sadists in 1944.
A picture taken shortly before the war shows a happy family. By the end of the War, Mr Kleinman was the only survivor – and he managed it by fooling Mengele into the belief that he was older than he actually was.
‘Mengele was the man who carried out human experiments, including operating on twins without anaesthetic,’ he said. ‘I heard them screaming many times when I was in Auschwitz.
‘When we arrived, we had to line up in front of Mengele to be examined. He needed workers. If he thought we were strong enough to work, we would live. If not, we were sent to the gas chambers. Most of the women and the children were killed.’
While he was waiting in the queue, another inmate told him to pretend that he was 17 rather than 14. It was a difficult decision but Mr Kleinman made up his mind to lie to the Angel of Death.
‘It was the first time in my life that I told a proper lie, as I’d been brought up to be honest,’ he said. ‘My father always told me to tell the truth if you want people to believe you. But I decided that a small lie to save your life was worth it. Some things you have to do.’
When the Nazi sadist asked his age, he duly told him that he was 17. Mengele listened, then waved him to the line of people who had been selected to live.
‘I was 5ft 10in, a strong guy. I grew up in a poor family in the Carpathian Mountains and we were used to hard work,’ he said. ‘God was with me and Mengele believed that I was 17. That was the moment I could have lost my life.’
His mother, four sisters and three brothers were all sent to the other line and were gassed. His father had been taken to Auschwitz three weeks before where he also perished.
In total, 68 members of Mr Kleinman’s family were killed. They were among the many thousands of Jews and Roma that Mengele – the resident medic at Auschwitz from May 1943 until he fled the advancing Red Army in 1945 – sent to their deaths at the camp, where 1.1million people lost their lives.
Mengele was in charge of administering Zyklon B, the gas used by the Nazis for mass-murder. During the course of his experiments, the doctor injected chemicals into prisoners’ eyes to try to change their iris colour, pulled out healthy teeth, and sewed children together to create artificially conjoined twins.
In an effort to find scientific proof for Nazi claims of Aryan superiority, Mengele unnecessarily amputated limbs and infected children with typhus. On one occasion, he killed 14 twins in a single night by injecting chloroform into their hearts.
He even managed to escape justice. At the end of the war, the killer went on the run and found refuge in South America. He died in a swimming pool in Brazil in 1979.
Mr Kleinman, who survived by fooling Mengele, did not speak about his experiences for 60 years but now dedicates his life to telling his story. Last year he took groups to Auschwitz seven times with the charity JRoots, and over the years has covered 24,000miles telling his story around the world.
A picture taken in 1936 shows Mr Kleinman at the age of seven, posing with his parents and five brothers and sisters in their hometown of Abud in western Romania. Four years later, Romania was annexed by Hungary and occupied by the German army.
‘It got worse and worse,’ Mr Kleinman recalls. ‘they closed our shops and force us to wear a yellow band with a star. In 1944, they finally arrested us and took us to Auschwitz in cattle trucks.
‘It was a 300mile journey and we had only one bucket for a toilet between 110 people. When we arrived, the stench was unbelievable. We weren’t human any more.’
Among the many horrors he experienced in the camp was the time the man labouring with a pickaxe next to him was shot dead simply because he straightened his back.
Mr Kleinman was taken on a notorious Nazi ‘death march’ in January 1945 when Soviet troops closed in on the camp.
In temperatures of -20C, he and thousands of prisoners were forced to walk 500miles to Sachsenhausen in Germany and from there another 500miles to Dachau, wearing nothing but striped pyjamas, a blanket and wooden clogs. Some resorted to eating human flesh while Mr Kleinman kept himself alive by consuming grass. Any prisoner who failed to keep up was executed.
‘Of the 5,000 prisoners that started the march, fewer than 200 of us survived,’ Mr Kleinman recalls. ‘I was three-and-a-half stone when the Americans found me.’
The moment of freedom come on 23 April 1945. ‘We were marching along and suddenly everybody disappeared and I was left alone,’ he said. ‘I hid in a foxhole and a tank approached.
‘The driver got out and found me. He asked me in Yiddish if I was a Jew and I admitted it. Then he told me he too was Jewish – an American Jew from Brooklyn. He got an SS officer and forced him to give me his boots and take my clogs instead.’
Mr Kleinman was taken to hospital, where a short time later he was given an extraordinary opportunity for revenge.
‘An American soldier gave me a service revolver and told me I could keep it for four days and shoot any Nazi I recognised,’ he said.
‘I took the gun but I couldn’t do it. I wasn’t brought up with hate and killing people. We were brought up with kindness. We were very poor in my house, but there was a lot of love. I just couldn’t do it. It wasn’t gong to gain anything. I couldn’t get my family back, so what was the vengeance for?’
The revolver proved to be useful, however, when a few days later Mr Kleinman was taking shelter in a beer factory and was accused by some Russian soldiers of stealing alcohol.
‘I don’t even drink,’ he said. ‘I managed to get away by pointing the pistol at them. I was very lucky as I didn’t even know how to fire it.’
Mr Kleinman came to the United Kingdom in 1947, and now lives in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex. In another extraordinary twist, in 1956 married a non-Jewish German woman, Evelyn Holz, whom he had met at a dance in Kilburn, north London. They had two children together and after a long and happy marriage, Evelyn passed away in 2004.
Mr Kleinman remarried in 2011, at the age of 82. His new wife, Miriam, is 10 years younger than him.
But the memories of his past continue to haunt him. He still mourns his father Martin, a rabbi who was killed at the age of 35; mother Rachel, also 35; his four sisters, Gitta, 15, Olga, nine, Shandi, seven, and Sarah, five; and his three brothers, Herman, 12, Abraham, four, and Moses, two.
By Jake Wallis Simons
Daily Mail
January 27, 2018
A Holocaust survivor has revealed how he escaped the Auschwitz gas chambers by outwitting Dr Josef Mengele, known as the ‘Angel of Death’.
Leslie Kleinman, 88, whose concentration camp number is still tattooed on his forearm, has told MailOnline for the first time about the heart-stopping encounter with one of Nazi Germany’s most notorious sadists in 1944.
A picture taken shortly before the war shows a happy family. By the end of the War, Mr Kleinman was the only survivor – and he managed it by fooling Mengele into the belief that he was older than he actually was.
‘Mengele was the man who carried out human experiments, including operating on twins without anaesthetic,’ he said. ‘I heard them screaming many times when I was in Auschwitz.
‘When we arrived, we had to line up in front of Mengele to be examined. He needed workers. If he thought we were strong enough to work, we would live. If not, we were sent to the gas chambers. Most of the women and the children were killed.’
While he was waiting in the queue, another inmate told him to pretend that he was 17 rather than 14. It was a difficult decision but Mr Kleinman made up his mind to lie to the Angel of Death.
‘It was the first time in my life that I told a proper lie, as I’d been brought up to be honest,’ he said. ‘My father always told me to tell the truth if you want people to believe you. But I decided that a small lie to save your life was worth it. Some things you have to do.’
When the Nazi sadist asked his age, he duly told him that he was 17. Mengele listened, then waved him to the line of people who had been selected to live.
‘I was 5ft 10in, a strong guy. I grew up in a poor family in the Carpathian Mountains and we were used to hard work,’ he said. ‘God was with me and Mengele believed that I was 17. That was the moment I could have lost my life.’
His mother, four sisters and three brothers were all sent to the other line and were gassed. His father had been taken to Auschwitz three weeks before where he also perished.
In total, 68 members of Mr Kleinman’s family were killed. They were among the many thousands of Jews and Roma that Mengele – the resident medic at Auschwitz from May 1943 until he fled the advancing Red Army in 1945 – sent to their deaths at the camp, where 1.1million people lost their lives.
Mengele was in charge of administering Zyklon B, the gas used by the Nazis for mass-murder. During the course of his experiments, the doctor injected chemicals into prisoners’ eyes to try to change their iris colour, pulled out healthy teeth, and sewed children together to create artificially conjoined twins.
In an effort to find scientific proof for Nazi claims of Aryan superiority, Mengele unnecessarily amputated limbs and infected children with typhus. On one occasion, he killed 14 twins in a single night by injecting chloroform into their hearts.
He even managed to escape justice. At the end of the war, the killer went on the run and found refuge in South America. He died in a swimming pool in Brazil in 1979.
Mr Kleinman, who survived by fooling Mengele, did not speak about his experiences for 60 years but now dedicates his life to telling his story. Last year he took groups to Auschwitz seven times with the charity JRoots, and over the years has covered 24,000miles telling his story around the world.
A picture taken in 1936 shows Mr Kleinman at the age of seven, posing with his parents and five brothers and sisters in their hometown of Abud in western Romania. Four years later, Romania was annexed by Hungary and occupied by the German army.
‘It got worse and worse,’ Mr Kleinman recalls. ‘they closed our shops and force us to wear a yellow band with a star. In 1944, they finally arrested us and took us to Auschwitz in cattle trucks.
‘It was a 300mile journey and we had only one bucket for a toilet between 110 people. When we arrived, the stench was unbelievable. We weren’t human any more.’
Among the many horrors he experienced in the camp was the time the man labouring with a pickaxe next to him was shot dead simply because he straightened his back.
Mr Kleinman was taken on a notorious Nazi ‘death march’ in January 1945 when Soviet troops closed in on the camp.
In temperatures of -20C, he and thousands of prisoners were forced to walk 500miles to Sachsenhausen in Germany and from there another 500miles to Dachau, wearing nothing but striped pyjamas, a blanket and wooden clogs. Some resorted to eating human flesh while Mr Kleinman kept himself alive by consuming grass. Any prisoner who failed to keep up was executed.
‘Of the 5,000 prisoners that started the march, fewer than 200 of us survived,’ Mr Kleinman recalls. ‘I was three-and-a-half stone when the Americans found me.’
The moment of freedom come on 23 April 1945. ‘We were marching along and suddenly everybody disappeared and I was left alone,’ he said. ‘I hid in a foxhole and a tank approached.
‘The driver got out and found me. He asked me in Yiddish if I was a Jew and I admitted it. Then he told me he too was Jewish – an American Jew from Brooklyn. He got an SS officer and forced him to give me his boots and take my clogs instead.’
Mr Kleinman was taken to hospital, where a short time later he was given an extraordinary opportunity for revenge.
‘An American soldier gave me a service revolver and told me I could keep it for four days and shoot any Nazi I recognised,’ he said.
‘I took the gun but I couldn’t do it. I wasn’t brought up with hate and killing people. We were brought up with kindness. We were very poor in my house, but there was a lot of love. I just couldn’t do it. It wasn’t gong to gain anything. I couldn’t get my family back, so what was the vengeance for?’
The revolver proved to be useful, however, when a few days later Mr Kleinman was taking shelter in a beer factory and was accused by some Russian soldiers of stealing alcohol.
‘I don’t even drink,’ he said. ‘I managed to get away by pointing the pistol at them. I was very lucky as I didn’t even know how to fire it.’
Mr Kleinman came to the United Kingdom in 1947, and now lives in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex. In another extraordinary twist, in 1956 married a non-Jewish German woman, Evelyn Holz, whom he had met at a dance in Kilburn, north London. They had two children together and after a long and happy marriage, Evelyn passed away in 2004.
Mr Kleinman remarried in 2011, at the age of 82. His new wife, Miriam, is 10 years younger than him.
But the memories of his past continue to haunt him. He still mourns his father Martin, a rabbi who was killed at the age of 35; mother Rachel, also 35; his four sisters, Gitta, 15, Olga, nine, Shandi, seven, and Sarah, five; and his three brothers, Herman, 12, Abraham, four, and Moses, two.
Sunday, January 28, 2018
RED DAVID’S GALVESTON NEWS COLUMN SHOWS WHY HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AND FINALLY GOT FIRED FROM COLLEGE OF THE MAINLAND
Packed full of falsehoods about Trump, this disgusting column by fired Marxist professor David Michael Smith AKA Red David makes the Galveston County Daily News not even worthy as a bird cage liner or fish wrapping.
MENTALLY UNSTABLE TRUMP MUST BE STOPPED
By David Michael Smith
The Galveston County Daily News
January 26, 2018
During his first year in office, Trump has proved to be the most brazen white supremacist, misogynistic, anti-working class and authoritarian U.S. president in decades.
He has praised Nazis in Charlottesville, encouraged police brutality, stopped federal oversight of murderous police departments, slandered African-American athletes, pardoned the anti-Hispanic former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, ended DACA, increased arrests of migrants, demanded a border wall, issued a Muslim travel ban and called African nations “shithole” countries.
Trump has stopped funding global family planning programs, appointed anti-choice federal judges, supported alleged child molester and Senate candidate Roy Moore, tried to drive transgender people out of the military, sought to gut legal protections for workers and consumers, supported a $1 trillion-plus reduction in taxes for capitalists, ended U.S. participation in the Paris climate accords, sent U.S. military forces to Syria, increased drone bombing in other countries and threatened to attack North Korea.
Trump’s actions have made unmistakably clear that he cares nothing for the vast majority of people at home and abroad. Most people do not care much for him, either. An Associated Press-NORC poll last month showed that only 32 percent of the public approves of Trump’s performance, making him “the least popular first-year president on record.” By Jan. 9, The Washington Post’s “Fact-Checker” had reported 2,001 lies or misleading statements by Trump since he became president.
Trump’s utter disregard for the truth and highly erratic behavior concern many mental health professionals. As John Gartner of Johns Hopkins University Medical School has pointed out, Trump is a “malignant narcissist.” And retired Harvard psychiatry professor Lance Dodes has concluded that Trump’s “sociopathic characteristics are undeniable.”
Gartner is right that Trump “evinces the most destructive and dangerous collection of psychiatric symptoms possible for a leader.” But the Trump presidency is a symptom of a far graver underlying social condition, which explains both his rise to power and the limitations of the “mainstream” opposition.
As Adam Serwer, Steve Phillips, and other analysts have emphasized, Trump was elected in large part because of many white people’s racist reactions to the first African-American president and “the browning of America.” Republicans have been exploiting racism to gain white voters since Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” in 1968, but done little to better their economic conditions. When Trump promised to “Make America Great Again,” he was voicing a commitment to “Make America White Again” and uplift “forgotten” white workers.
It is urgent that Trump be forced out of office. But most Democratic politicians do not support impeachment, and even if they regain control of Congress in November, a two-thirds vote to convict may not be forthcoming in the Senate. The prospect of millions of people stopping work, taking to the streets, and driving Trump out of the White House may seem far-fetched. But if the choice is between allowing a nuclear-armed and extremely dangerous white supremacist to remain as president — and supporting a mass popular uprising against him — I will see you in the streets.
EDITOR’S NOTE: When I talked to Red David he came across as a nice guy. But his brain has been addled by Marxist horseshit and he should never have been allowed to indoctrinate his naive students.
When Red David calls Trump mentally unstable, that’s sort of like the kettle calling the pot black.
When Red David says Trump praised Nazis in Charlottesville and encouraged police brutality, that’s an outright damn lie. When he called black NFL players Sons of Bitches for disrespecting our flag and country, Trump was not slandering them. And some of those African nations are shithole countries.
Trump did not increase arrests of migrants, he increased arrests of illegal aliens, especially those who had committed crimes while illegally in this country. And Joe Arpaio was not an anti-Hispanic sheriff, he was a no-nonsense law-and-order lawman of which, unfortunately, there aren’t many left.
“Murderous police departments”… Even Obama and Eric Holder never referred to the Ferguson PD or any other police department as murderous.
Red David cherry picked a nutjob psychiatrist who without ever having examined him, concludes that Trump “evinces the most destructive and dangerous collection of psychiatric symptoms possible for a leader.” That puts Trump right up there with Hitler, Stalin and Mao … Oops, I forgot that Mao is one of Red David’s heroes.
And in the end, Red David all but calls for an open insurrection against the Trump presidency.
MENTALLY UNSTABLE TRUMP MUST BE STOPPED
By David Michael Smith
The Galveston County Daily News
January 26, 2018
During his first year in office, Trump has proved to be the most brazen white supremacist, misogynistic, anti-working class and authoritarian U.S. president in decades.
He has praised Nazis in Charlottesville, encouraged police brutality, stopped federal oversight of murderous police departments, slandered African-American athletes, pardoned the anti-Hispanic former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, ended DACA, increased arrests of migrants, demanded a border wall, issued a Muslim travel ban and called African nations “shithole” countries.
Trump has stopped funding global family planning programs, appointed anti-choice federal judges, supported alleged child molester and Senate candidate Roy Moore, tried to drive transgender people out of the military, sought to gut legal protections for workers and consumers, supported a $1 trillion-plus reduction in taxes for capitalists, ended U.S. participation in the Paris climate accords, sent U.S. military forces to Syria, increased drone bombing in other countries and threatened to attack North Korea.
Trump’s actions have made unmistakably clear that he cares nothing for the vast majority of people at home and abroad. Most people do not care much for him, either. An Associated Press-NORC poll last month showed that only 32 percent of the public approves of Trump’s performance, making him “the least popular first-year president on record.” By Jan. 9, The Washington Post’s “Fact-Checker” had reported 2,001 lies or misleading statements by Trump since he became president.
Trump’s utter disregard for the truth and highly erratic behavior concern many mental health professionals. As John Gartner of Johns Hopkins University Medical School has pointed out, Trump is a “malignant narcissist.” And retired Harvard psychiatry professor Lance Dodes has concluded that Trump’s “sociopathic characteristics are undeniable.”
Gartner is right that Trump “evinces the most destructive and dangerous collection of psychiatric symptoms possible for a leader.” But the Trump presidency is a symptom of a far graver underlying social condition, which explains both his rise to power and the limitations of the “mainstream” opposition.
As Adam Serwer, Steve Phillips, and other analysts have emphasized, Trump was elected in large part because of many white people’s racist reactions to the first African-American president and “the browning of America.” Republicans have been exploiting racism to gain white voters since Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” in 1968, but done little to better their economic conditions. When Trump promised to “Make America Great Again,” he was voicing a commitment to “Make America White Again” and uplift “forgotten” white workers.
It is urgent that Trump be forced out of office. But most Democratic politicians do not support impeachment, and even if they regain control of Congress in November, a two-thirds vote to convict may not be forthcoming in the Senate. The prospect of millions of people stopping work, taking to the streets, and driving Trump out of the White House may seem far-fetched. But if the choice is between allowing a nuclear-armed and extremely dangerous white supremacist to remain as president — and supporting a mass popular uprising against him — I will see you in the streets.
EDITOR’S NOTE: When I talked to Red David he came across as a nice guy. But his brain has been addled by Marxist horseshit and he should never have been allowed to indoctrinate his naive students.
When Red David calls Trump mentally unstable, that’s sort of like the kettle calling the pot black.
When Red David says Trump praised Nazis in Charlottesville and encouraged police brutality, that’s an outright damn lie. When he called black NFL players Sons of Bitches for disrespecting our flag and country, Trump was not slandering them. And some of those African nations are shithole countries.
Trump did not increase arrests of migrants, he increased arrests of illegal aliens, especially those who had committed crimes while illegally in this country. And Joe Arpaio was not an anti-Hispanic sheriff, he was a no-nonsense law-and-order lawman of which, unfortunately, there aren’t many left.
“Murderous police departments”… Even Obama and Eric Holder never referred to the Ferguson PD or any other police department as murderous.
Red David cherry picked a nutjob psychiatrist who without ever having examined him, concludes that Trump “evinces the most destructive and dangerous collection of psychiatric symptoms possible for a leader.” That puts Trump right up there with Hitler, Stalin and Mao … Oops, I forgot that Mao is one of Red David’s heroes.
And in the end, Red David all but calls for an open insurrection against the Trump presidency.
IT'S HARD TO FIGHT THE BEEF WHEN YOU TAPED YOURSELF DOING IT
by Bob Walsh
Obdulia Sanchez is arguably both very unlucky and incredibly stupid. She wrecked her car while drunk driving several months ago in California's Merced County and was live-streaming herself while it happened. The wreck killed the 19-year old's 14-year-old sister and seriously injured the sister's friend. When tested 90 minutes after the crash she still blew a 0.106 on the breathalyzer.
Ms. Sanchez has just changed her plea from NOT GUILTY to NO CONTEST to a total of seven charges. Her mouthpiece is trying for probation but that almost certainly is not going to happen, though if she was an illegal she might have a real shot at it. Unfortunately for her she is not so she is looking at somewhere between 6 and 12 years, depending on how the judge is feeling that day.
Obdulia Sanchez is arguably both very unlucky and incredibly stupid. She wrecked her car while drunk driving several months ago in California's Merced County and was live-streaming herself while it happened. The wreck killed the 19-year old's 14-year-old sister and seriously injured the sister's friend. When tested 90 minutes after the crash she still blew a 0.106 on the breathalyzer.
Ms. Sanchez has just changed her plea from NOT GUILTY to NO CONTEST to a total of seven charges. Her mouthpiece is trying for probation but that almost certainly is not going to happen, though if she was an illegal she might have a real shot at it. Unfortunately for her she is not so she is looking at somewhere between 6 and 12 years, depending on how the judge is feeling that day.
IT'S EASY TO BE AN ASSHOLE IF SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO PAY THE FREIGHT
by Bob Walsh
Over the last three years the formerly great state of California has paid out $25 million to settle sexual harassment beefs. Almost all of this is taxpayers money and much of it (though not all) is settled on the QT. A total of 92 cases are represented by this money.
The smallest award was $500 to a prison inmate. The larges was $10 million to four wards of what used to be called the California Youth Authority.
In perhaps the most egregious case a supervisor of the Cal. State Hospital System (nut farm) hid a video camera under a bathroom sink in a staff bathroom at the state prison hospital at Stockton. A total of 34 workers sued.
Initially the state fought it on the grounds that the invasion of privacy was not gender specific as both genders (or all three or four or five depending on how you count in CA) were taped in the unisex bathroom, but they eventually settled for a tad over $750,000. The supervisor was successfully prosecuted for several misdemeanor complaints.
Over the last three years the formerly great state of California has paid out $25 million to settle sexual harassment beefs. Almost all of this is taxpayers money and much of it (though not all) is settled on the QT. A total of 92 cases are represented by this money.
The smallest award was $500 to a prison inmate. The larges was $10 million to four wards of what used to be called the California Youth Authority.
In perhaps the most egregious case a supervisor of the Cal. State Hospital System (nut farm) hid a video camera under a bathroom sink in a staff bathroom at the state prison hospital at Stockton. A total of 34 workers sued.
Initially the state fought it on the grounds that the invasion of privacy was not gender specific as both genders (or all three or four or five depending on how you count in CA) were taped in the unisex bathroom, but they eventually settled for a tad over $750,000. The supervisor was successfully prosecuted for several misdemeanor complaints.
HE HELPED SMUGGLE MORE THAN 27 TONS OF POT IN THREE NIGHTS
An interview with Kermit Schweidel, the author of 'Folly Cove: A Smuggler's True Tale of the Pot Rebellion.'
by Seth Ferranti
VICE News
January 26, 2018
Until snitches gave up the details to Boston’s federal prosecutors in 1980, a nearly 30-ton shipment of Colombian weed was the stuff of legend. Folly Cove, an inlet on the tip of Cape Ann, about an hour up the coast from Boston on the North Shore, was the site of the 1975 caper. Kermit Schweidel, an El Paso resident who was among the 42 individuals indicted in the audacious maneuver, remembers it well.
Folly Cove: A Smuggler's True Tale of the Pot Rebellion, a new book out February 20th from Cinco Puntos Press, is Schweidel's retelling of the operation. After a sudden decrease in the quality of the Mexican weed his El Paso crew had been moving over the border, buyers were desperate for better dope. Jack Stricklin, the leader of the contingent for five years, decided to take advantage of the market conditions and facilitate the massive operation.
Running his illicit enterprise like a publicly traded venture, Stricklin promised his investors— lawyers, bankers, doctors, waitresses, and barbers in El Paso—that he would pay them back three-to-one, and raised $400,000 in capital to finance a deal for Colombian product. “Stricklin had 50 people up and down the North Shore [of Massachusetts] working for him in various staging houses where the loads of weed would be stashed after being brought in on the smaller boats that rendezvoused with the mothership,” Schweidel told me over the phone.
It took the better part of three nights to move all of the weed, from getting it off of the boats to getting it out into the market. But by the third night, the first night's worth had hit the streets, paying back the investors and recouping costs. From there, it was pure profit. VICE reached out to Schweidel to find out how he kept a clear distinction between truth and tall tales in his new book.
VICE: Who was Jack Stricklin and how did you get to know him?
Kermit Schweidel: Jack Stricklin was a unique individual, really the definition of charisma. The thing about Jack was that he made every friend he had feel like his best friend, and there was nothing disingenuous about that. It was very real with him, because he was somebody who was very present. When he was with you, he was 100 percent with you. I was 12 years old when I met him, and he was four, five years older. I had two older sisters at the time, and that's kind of what brought Jack into my orbit there. But he took me seriously, and our relationship kind of built from there.
Why did you wait so long to tell his story?
Basically, it never was all my story to tell. It was a story that involved a lot of different stakeholders—Jack Stricklin and Mike Halliday being two of the biggest. Billy Russell is another one. I played an increasingly growing role once I got involved, but it really was their story. Jack Stricklin did 17 years consecutively, his last sentence. When he got out he convinced me that it was time. The way it ended up, there was barely enough time, because Jack died last November, but he lived to see the book completed. I deeply regret that he did not live to see the book published. Jack, Mike, and Billy all very much encouraged me to do it and played a role in it. It was time for us to tell our story.
What did Jack mean to the operation?
Jack just had this ability to inspire people that made everybody want to do things for him. He was the glue that held it all together. Mike Halliday was the guy that got the ball rolling. He found the big connection and was the smuggler. But Jack was the inspiration and the business mind, the entrepreneur kind of behind the whole thing. He did 24 years of his life in prison for pot, and the reason he did 24 years of his life in prison for pot is because Jack refused to roll over on anybody. He was offered deal after deal after deal. He could have got out in a fraction of that time, and all he would have had to do was turn snitch, but Jack wouldn't do that.
Smugglers are known to exaggerate. How did you kind of keep a clear distinction between the truth and tall tales in your book?
Boston was a big part of the book, and I was intimately involved in Boston. I knew the details. I feel really good about the veracity of the story, even after 40 years. The earlier stories from Jack, Mike, and Billy were stories I had heard all my life. I knew them to be true. The events that happened during that period of time were pretty clearly etched in our minds. An interesting thing about that would be Ralph Armendariz. Ralph is the guy that went to Colombia and got the load together and rode back on the boat. Forty years later, as I was writing the book, and I got Ralph's complete story, it was the first time any of us—me or Jack or Billy or Mike—had ever heard that side of the story, and it was the first time Ralph really ever heard about what was going on in Boston. This book kind of completes the story for everyone.
How did Jack and Mike end up smuggling so much pot?
It was really kind of trial-and-error and fits and starts as they got up to the 250-pound level. You've got to have a supplier, and when you get to that level, you've got to have a buyer, somebody that can distribute it. But once Mike made the connection in Mexico with La Nacha, who headed one of the big drug families of Northern Mexico, if not the biggest, they had access to a lot of pot.
Jack attracted buyers, and before they knew it, they were doing a truckload at a time, which was 750 to 800 pounds, and then two trucks at a time, and then two trucks, three or four times a week in the high season. Jack was the one that introduced airplanes to the equation. I would say they went from doing small Jeep loads, bringing it over on their backs, to doing truckloads and planeloads in a matter of six months. It just all happened really fast.
How did the drug trade evolve from the "pot rebellion," as you call it in your book, to the violent industry we have today?
The short answer is cocaine. Cocaine came along and ruined the pot business. In our day, the business of pot was really handled by the culture of pot. It was a culture of cooperation, a culture of trust. We would give people hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pot on a handshake, and they would take it and we'd always get our money. But it was a really brief window between 1970 and 1975 when the culture of pot really dominated the business of pot. Cocaine comes along, which is a lot easier to smuggle, with a lot more money involved.
The money became too serious to ignore. [People] started shooting each other and killing each other and it got bigger than the pot culture could handle. Real, true pioneers like Jack, Mike, and Billy, didn't want to get into the cocaine business. They got into pot because they believed in the product. They used the product. They liked the product. They felt like there was nothing wrong, we knew we were breaking laws, but we didn't feel like we were breaking any big moral codes or doing anything evil or dangerous. Cocaine changed that. I think that kind of begat the violence that ended up just ripping the border apart.
Do you think the Folly Cove operation helped pave the way for legalization?
Well, we're not there yet, are we? Let me say that we were dumb enough, or naïve enough, to believe that we were going to win. Even back in the 70s, we thought this was going to go exactly the way of Prohibition, and the government was going to see the error of its ways and people were going to continue to use this stuff, and eventually it would be legalized or decriminalized. Well, here we are 40 years later and they're only now making those inroads. It's ridiculous to me that we haven't gone further, that we haven't legalized it on a national scale. The government fights it because, face it, drug enforcement is as big a business as drug distribution, and nobody wants to cut drug enforcement budgets—least of all drug enforcement. I think it's a fight that we'll continue to wage. But in the meantime, people continue to be prosecuted and jailed because of it, and that's the real crime to me.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, no, the real crime is not that people continue to get prosecuted and jailed for pot. The real crime is that people continue to break the laws against pot.
by Seth Ferranti
VICE News
January 26, 2018
Until snitches gave up the details to Boston’s federal prosecutors in 1980, a nearly 30-ton shipment of Colombian weed was the stuff of legend. Folly Cove, an inlet on the tip of Cape Ann, about an hour up the coast from Boston on the North Shore, was the site of the 1975 caper. Kermit Schweidel, an El Paso resident who was among the 42 individuals indicted in the audacious maneuver, remembers it well.
Folly Cove: A Smuggler's True Tale of the Pot Rebellion, a new book out February 20th from Cinco Puntos Press, is Schweidel's retelling of the operation. After a sudden decrease in the quality of the Mexican weed his El Paso crew had been moving over the border, buyers were desperate for better dope. Jack Stricklin, the leader of the contingent for five years, decided to take advantage of the market conditions and facilitate the massive operation.
Running his illicit enterprise like a publicly traded venture, Stricklin promised his investors— lawyers, bankers, doctors, waitresses, and barbers in El Paso—that he would pay them back three-to-one, and raised $400,000 in capital to finance a deal for Colombian product. “Stricklin had 50 people up and down the North Shore [of Massachusetts] working for him in various staging houses where the loads of weed would be stashed after being brought in on the smaller boats that rendezvoused with the mothership,” Schweidel told me over the phone.
It took the better part of three nights to move all of the weed, from getting it off of the boats to getting it out into the market. But by the third night, the first night's worth had hit the streets, paying back the investors and recouping costs. From there, it was pure profit. VICE reached out to Schweidel to find out how he kept a clear distinction between truth and tall tales in his new book.
VICE: Who was Jack Stricklin and how did you get to know him?
Kermit Schweidel: Jack Stricklin was a unique individual, really the definition of charisma. The thing about Jack was that he made every friend he had feel like his best friend, and there was nothing disingenuous about that. It was very real with him, because he was somebody who was very present. When he was with you, he was 100 percent with you. I was 12 years old when I met him, and he was four, five years older. I had two older sisters at the time, and that's kind of what brought Jack into my orbit there. But he took me seriously, and our relationship kind of built from there.
Why did you wait so long to tell his story?
Basically, it never was all my story to tell. It was a story that involved a lot of different stakeholders—Jack Stricklin and Mike Halliday being two of the biggest. Billy Russell is another one. I played an increasingly growing role once I got involved, but it really was their story. Jack Stricklin did 17 years consecutively, his last sentence. When he got out he convinced me that it was time. The way it ended up, there was barely enough time, because Jack died last November, but he lived to see the book completed. I deeply regret that he did not live to see the book published. Jack, Mike, and Billy all very much encouraged me to do it and played a role in it. It was time for us to tell our story.
What did Jack mean to the operation?
Jack just had this ability to inspire people that made everybody want to do things for him. He was the glue that held it all together. Mike Halliday was the guy that got the ball rolling. He found the big connection and was the smuggler. But Jack was the inspiration and the business mind, the entrepreneur kind of behind the whole thing. He did 24 years of his life in prison for pot, and the reason he did 24 years of his life in prison for pot is because Jack refused to roll over on anybody. He was offered deal after deal after deal. He could have got out in a fraction of that time, and all he would have had to do was turn snitch, but Jack wouldn't do that.
Smugglers are known to exaggerate. How did you kind of keep a clear distinction between the truth and tall tales in your book?
Boston was a big part of the book, and I was intimately involved in Boston. I knew the details. I feel really good about the veracity of the story, even after 40 years. The earlier stories from Jack, Mike, and Billy were stories I had heard all my life. I knew them to be true. The events that happened during that period of time were pretty clearly etched in our minds. An interesting thing about that would be Ralph Armendariz. Ralph is the guy that went to Colombia and got the load together and rode back on the boat. Forty years later, as I was writing the book, and I got Ralph's complete story, it was the first time any of us—me or Jack or Billy or Mike—had ever heard that side of the story, and it was the first time Ralph really ever heard about what was going on in Boston. This book kind of completes the story for everyone.
How did Jack and Mike end up smuggling so much pot?
It was really kind of trial-and-error and fits and starts as they got up to the 250-pound level. You've got to have a supplier, and when you get to that level, you've got to have a buyer, somebody that can distribute it. But once Mike made the connection in Mexico with La Nacha, who headed one of the big drug families of Northern Mexico, if not the biggest, they had access to a lot of pot.
Jack attracted buyers, and before they knew it, they were doing a truckload at a time, which was 750 to 800 pounds, and then two trucks at a time, and then two trucks, three or four times a week in the high season. Jack was the one that introduced airplanes to the equation. I would say they went from doing small Jeep loads, bringing it over on their backs, to doing truckloads and planeloads in a matter of six months. It just all happened really fast.
How did the drug trade evolve from the "pot rebellion," as you call it in your book, to the violent industry we have today?
The short answer is cocaine. Cocaine came along and ruined the pot business. In our day, the business of pot was really handled by the culture of pot. It was a culture of cooperation, a culture of trust. We would give people hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pot on a handshake, and they would take it and we'd always get our money. But it was a really brief window between 1970 and 1975 when the culture of pot really dominated the business of pot. Cocaine comes along, which is a lot easier to smuggle, with a lot more money involved.
The money became too serious to ignore. [People] started shooting each other and killing each other and it got bigger than the pot culture could handle. Real, true pioneers like Jack, Mike, and Billy, didn't want to get into the cocaine business. They got into pot because they believed in the product. They used the product. They liked the product. They felt like there was nothing wrong, we knew we were breaking laws, but we didn't feel like we were breaking any big moral codes or doing anything evil or dangerous. Cocaine changed that. I think that kind of begat the violence that ended up just ripping the border apart.
Do you think the Folly Cove operation helped pave the way for legalization?
Well, we're not there yet, are we? Let me say that we were dumb enough, or naïve enough, to believe that we were going to win. Even back in the 70s, we thought this was going to go exactly the way of Prohibition, and the government was going to see the error of its ways and people were going to continue to use this stuff, and eventually it would be legalized or decriminalized. Well, here we are 40 years later and they're only now making those inroads. It's ridiculous to me that we haven't gone further, that we haven't legalized it on a national scale. The government fights it because, face it, drug enforcement is as big a business as drug distribution, and nobody wants to cut drug enforcement budgets—least of all drug enforcement. I think it's a fight that we'll continue to wage. But in the meantime, people continue to be prosecuted and jailed because of it, and that's the real crime to me.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, no, the real crime is not that people continue to get prosecuted and jailed for pot. The real crime is that people continue to break the laws against pot.
GUN OWNERSHIP ONLY FOR THE MILITARY AND POLICE?
Everything you think you know about the Second Amendment is WRONG says historian who claims Founding Fathers wanted a highly-trained militia, not an 'armed mob'
By Daniel Bates
Daily Mail
January 25, 2018
The original meaning of the Second Amendment has been twisted beyond recognition by an 'armed faith' promoted by gun advocates, a new book claims.
Groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) are wrongly claiming that protecting gun rights is the key to protecting all other forms of liberty, says the new book Armed in America: A History of Gun Rights from Colonial Militias to Concealed Carry.
But in fact, that bears no relationship to the original meaning of the Second Amendment which specifically linked gun ownership to membership of a well-regulated militia, claims its author.
Patrick J. Charles, a Marine veteran and historian, accuses NRA chairman Wayne LaPierre of 'rewriting history' and says the Founding Fathers would consider modern day gun owners to be an 'armed mob', in his book that was released Thursday.
Gun advocates like Sarah Palin, who owns a pink camouflage AR-15, are flat out wrong and are 'guided by political ideology more so than facts', he says in the book.
Charles writes: 'What is often characterized as the history of gun rights is not really history at all, at least as understood by historians.
'Rather it is a historically based narrative that is researched, written and disseminated...to reinforce the political and cultural views of the gun-rights community'.
The book is a harsh criticism of the gun lobby but Charles, who has spent a decade researching and writing about the history of gun rights, claims he is simply adhering to historical methodology and historical norms.
Charles is the historian of the 24th Special Operations Wing of the US Air Force, and says he is not 'anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, associated with communism or socialism, unfamiliar with firearms'.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution, which was written in 1789, states: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.
What Charles seeks to do is to place the amendment in the context in which it was understood at the time of its writing to show how far America has moved from what it originally meant.
In Charles' view, the well-regulated militia phrase of the Second Amendment has been deliberately overlooked by gun advocates because it undermines their main argument for looser gun control rules.
One of the key documents the Founders were inspired by when writing the Constitution was the 1689 Bill of Rights from England.
Article VII states: 'That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law'.
Charles argues that this meant Parliament could choose which persons could be armed - 'suitable to their condition' - and under what circumstances those arms could be borne - 'as allowed by the law'.
Gun ownership in England at the time was heavily controlled and depended on socioeconomic status, so Parliament was not sanctioning the widespread use of firearms.
As Charles sees it, Parliament had the authority to call forth the people as a militia - a group of civilians who could be called on to supplement the army in a crisis - to restore their own liberty and protect their government, nothing more.
This same principle was adopted by the Continental Congress in the US, Charles says. Another key principle, which Charles argues has been lost, is that this militia had to be 'well-regulated'.
In the book he says that 'every political and legal commentator from the Glorious Revolution through to the American Revolution agreed that the right to arms was useless, unless the militia was properly trained and disciplined'.
One unnamed mid 18th Century writer cited in the book summed up the dangers of a poorly trained militia.
He wrote: 'Should you take your Fire-Arms along with you, that John in the Rear will be firing his Piece into the Back-side of his Friend Tom in the Front or, which would still be worse, blow out the Brains of his noble Captain…
'...a Firelock, with Bayonet fixed on the End of it, is a very awkward Kind of Instrument, and that it requires more Dexterity than you may be aware of'.
According to Charles 'the belief in a well-regulated militia as the people's birthright and security permeated throughout the American revolution'.
He writes: 'Outlining the importance that the Founding Fathers placed on military discipline and training to effectuate a constitutional well-regulated militia is vital because there are many contemporary Americans who improperly equate a well-regulated militia as being one and the same with a mere armed citizenry.
'Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founding Fathers would have categorized such militias as ill-regulated, unregulated, or an armed mob'.
Charles says that the Constitution does not allow people to assemble as their own militias like the 'Oath Keepers' who have appeared at protests around the country in recent years to promote Second Amendment rights.
There were indeed some independent companies such as the Fairfax County Militia Association, but they were under the direction of colonial governments and later state and federal governments.
The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 but the next year the Militia Acts were passed which made the states the organizers of militias.
It also effectively ended the idea of a national militia as the Founding Fathers envisaged it, due to squabbling between the federal and state governments.
During the 1840s compulsory militia service gave way to volunteer militia companies and gradually the idea of owning a gun became unlinked to military service.
By the time of the Civil War, the 'prevalence of the armed citizenry model over the civic republicanism model' had taken over.
The pro-gun lobby also began to form and the NRA was founded in 1871, named after an English rifle club of the same name.
Editorials began appearing in papers criticizing restrictions on armed carriage laws but in 1911 New York brought in the Sullivan Law, which required individuals to obtain a permit to purchase or carry handguns amid a moral panic about gang violence.
It sparked an intense backlash and led to a split between those who believed in the need for gun regulation to protect themselves and gun rights advocates who saw themselves as embodying 'true American ideals'.
During the 1930s the gun advocacy message began to pick up steam under the guidance of the NRA which created a 'cultural divide' to push their agenda, Charles charges.
Sportsmen, hunters and gun owners were cast as the patriotic defenders of the nation and were described as carrying on the arms-bearing tradition of the Founding Fathers.
For much of the 20th century the NRA was 'unwavering' in its belief that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right of an individual to own and use firearms for their own purposes.
But it was not until the 1970s that they had the legal arguments or academic theories to back them up, Charles argues.
The key texts which they have come to rely on, he writes, were known as the 'Standard Model Second Amendment', a series of originalist and individualistic interpretations of the Constitution, the most well known of which was by St Louis University Law Professor Don Kates.
An originalist approach involves reading the text as it was understood at the time, the technique Charles says he used on his book Armed in America.
Originalism's most prominent advocate on all clauses of the constitution was Justice Antonin Scalia, and Trump's Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch spoke in favor of such an approach at his confirmation hearing.
But Charles says that the key studies of the second amendment in the 1970s 'failed to adhere to even the most basic objectivity and methodology norms'.
He claims that they 'manufactured history as a means to advance Second Amendment rights' and that some of their claims were 'patently absurd'.
Charles admits that despite this, the Standard Model thinking became hugely influential and became received thinking among gun advocates.
When President George W Bush made longtime NRA member John Ashcroft his Attorney General, he changed the Department of Justice policy on firearms to be about the right of individuals to bear arms, not as part of a militia.
The influence was also felt through the courts and the NRA's biggest victory was the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v Heller.
A majority of judges ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to armed self defense in their home - a reading of the Constitution that was in line with Standard Model.
The Justices in the majority included Scalia. Charles writes that after the Heller ruling the 'political tone changed dramatically' in Washington.
Whilst Democrats continued to advocate for 'reasonable firearm controls' Republicans 'abandoned their support for gun control altogether'.
The reality is that appeasing the gun lobby is about 'appealing to a broader conservative political base that opposes liberal views, fears government overreach and views the Second Amendment as the last line of defense,' Charles says.
More recently there has been the development of what Charles calls an 'armed faith'. He describes this as the belief in 'unrestrained right to repel force with force and that any impediments to this right does society more harm than good'.
According to Charles this is a 'faith that [believes that] less restrictions on the access, ownership and use of firearms ensures democratic governance, protects all constitutional liberties, such as speech, religion and assembly, and as a matter of public policy is far better than any restrictive alternatives'.
It is also completely wrong, he argues. As Charles sees it, the US should heed the warnings of other countries that America's gun problem is out of control.
The US is first the world in arms ownership per capita and first among developed nations for firearm deaths and mass shootings.
Gun-related deaths happen so frequently that more people have died from them than all the major military conflicts in US history.
Despite this, the last time Congress passed a gun control bill was the assault weapons ban in 1994 - which expired in 2004.
In a searing opening chapter Charles seeks to debunk many NRA-promoted theories about why increased gun ownership is a good thing.
He criticizes the controversial 'Stand Your Ground' laws which were used by George Zimmerman in his defense for killing Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, in 2012.
In fact people living in the late 18th century were legally required to retreat before using deadly force, Charles writes.
Charles is tough on scholars who support the NRA's viewpoint and says they have been writing 'historical errors'.
He writes: 'The history of gun rights was not based on adhering to accepted historical principles such as historical objectivity, the search for the historical truth or a scholarly exchange of ideas.
'Rather, the history of gun rights was principled on legal advocacy, political activism and in the process expanding the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment as broadly as possible.'
Charles says the theory that 'more guns equals less crime' is 'specious'.
He says that out of 160 active shooter situations investigated by the FBI between 2000 and 2013 only 3.1 percent were ended by armed civilians.
More than four times that number, 13.1 percent, was ended by people without guns, according to his research.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Patrick Charles says the Second Amendment does not give us the right to own guns ….. Quick, git a rope!
By Daniel Bates
Daily Mail
January 25, 2018
The original meaning of the Second Amendment has been twisted beyond recognition by an 'armed faith' promoted by gun advocates, a new book claims.
Groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) are wrongly claiming that protecting gun rights is the key to protecting all other forms of liberty, says the new book Armed in America: A History of Gun Rights from Colonial Militias to Concealed Carry.
But in fact, that bears no relationship to the original meaning of the Second Amendment which specifically linked gun ownership to membership of a well-regulated militia, claims its author.
Patrick J. Charles, a Marine veteran and historian, accuses NRA chairman Wayne LaPierre of 'rewriting history' and says the Founding Fathers would consider modern day gun owners to be an 'armed mob', in his book that was released Thursday.
Gun advocates like Sarah Palin, who owns a pink camouflage AR-15, are flat out wrong and are 'guided by political ideology more so than facts', he says in the book.
Charles writes: 'What is often characterized as the history of gun rights is not really history at all, at least as understood by historians.
'Rather it is a historically based narrative that is researched, written and disseminated...to reinforce the political and cultural views of the gun-rights community'.
The book is a harsh criticism of the gun lobby but Charles, who has spent a decade researching and writing about the history of gun rights, claims he is simply adhering to historical methodology and historical norms.
Charles is the historian of the 24th Special Operations Wing of the US Air Force, and says he is not 'anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, associated with communism or socialism, unfamiliar with firearms'.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution, which was written in 1789, states: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.
What Charles seeks to do is to place the amendment in the context in which it was understood at the time of its writing to show how far America has moved from what it originally meant.
In Charles' view, the well-regulated militia phrase of the Second Amendment has been deliberately overlooked by gun advocates because it undermines their main argument for looser gun control rules.
One of the key documents the Founders were inspired by when writing the Constitution was the 1689 Bill of Rights from England.
Article VII states: 'That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law'.
Charles argues that this meant Parliament could choose which persons could be armed - 'suitable to their condition' - and under what circumstances those arms could be borne - 'as allowed by the law'.
Gun ownership in England at the time was heavily controlled and depended on socioeconomic status, so Parliament was not sanctioning the widespread use of firearms.
As Charles sees it, Parliament had the authority to call forth the people as a militia - a group of civilians who could be called on to supplement the army in a crisis - to restore their own liberty and protect their government, nothing more.
This same principle was adopted by the Continental Congress in the US, Charles says. Another key principle, which Charles argues has been lost, is that this militia had to be 'well-regulated'.
In the book he says that 'every political and legal commentator from the Glorious Revolution through to the American Revolution agreed that the right to arms was useless, unless the militia was properly trained and disciplined'.
One unnamed mid 18th Century writer cited in the book summed up the dangers of a poorly trained militia.
He wrote: 'Should you take your Fire-Arms along with you, that John in the Rear will be firing his Piece into the Back-side of his Friend Tom in the Front or, which would still be worse, blow out the Brains of his noble Captain…
'...a Firelock, with Bayonet fixed on the End of it, is a very awkward Kind of Instrument, and that it requires more Dexterity than you may be aware of'.
According to Charles 'the belief in a well-regulated militia as the people's birthright and security permeated throughout the American revolution'.
He writes: 'Outlining the importance that the Founding Fathers placed on military discipline and training to effectuate a constitutional well-regulated militia is vital because there are many contemporary Americans who improperly equate a well-regulated militia as being one and the same with a mere armed citizenry.
'Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founding Fathers would have categorized such militias as ill-regulated, unregulated, or an armed mob'.
Charles says that the Constitution does not allow people to assemble as their own militias like the 'Oath Keepers' who have appeared at protests around the country in recent years to promote Second Amendment rights.
There were indeed some independent companies such as the Fairfax County Militia Association, but they were under the direction of colonial governments and later state and federal governments.
The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 but the next year the Militia Acts were passed which made the states the organizers of militias.
It also effectively ended the idea of a national militia as the Founding Fathers envisaged it, due to squabbling between the federal and state governments.
During the 1840s compulsory militia service gave way to volunteer militia companies and gradually the idea of owning a gun became unlinked to military service.
By the time of the Civil War, the 'prevalence of the armed citizenry model over the civic republicanism model' had taken over.
The pro-gun lobby also began to form and the NRA was founded in 1871, named after an English rifle club of the same name.
Editorials began appearing in papers criticizing restrictions on armed carriage laws but in 1911 New York brought in the Sullivan Law, which required individuals to obtain a permit to purchase or carry handguns amid a moral panic about gang violence.
It sparked an intense backlash and led to a split between those who believed in the need for gun regulation to protect themselves and gun rights advocates who saw themselves as embodying 'true American ideals'.
During the 1930s the gun advocacy message began to pick up steam under the guidance of the NRA which created a 'cultural divide' to push their agenda, Charles charges.
Sportsmen, hunters and gun owners were cast as the patriotic defenders of the nation and were described as carrying on the arms-bearing tradition of the Founding Fathers.
For much of the 20th century the NRA was 'unwavering' in its belief that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right of an individual to own and use firearms for their own purposes.
But it was not until the 1970s that they had the legal arguments or academic theories to back them up, Charles argues.
The key texts which they have come to rely on, he writes, were known as the 'Standard Model Second Amendment', a series of originalist and individualistic interpretations of the Constitution, the most well known of which was by St Louis University Law Professor Don Kates.
An originalist approach involves reading the text as it was understood at the time, the technique Charles says he used on his book Armed in America.
Originalism's most prominent advocate on all clauses of the constitution was Justice Antonin Scalia, and Trump's Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch spoke in favor of such an approach at his confirmation hearing.
But Charles says that the key studies of the second amendment in the 1970s 'failed to adhere to even the most basic objectivity and methodology norms'.
He claims that they 'manufactured history as a means to advance Second Amendment rights' and that some of their claims were 'patently absurd'.
Charles admits that despite this, the Standard Model thinking became hugely influential and became received thinking among gun advocates.
When President George W Bush made longtime NRA member John Ashcroft his Attorney General, he changed the Department of Justice policy on firearms to be about the right of individuals to bear arms, not as part of a militia.
The influence was also felt through the courts and the NRA's biggest victory was the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v Heller.
A majority of judges ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to armed self defense in their home - a reading of the Constitution that was in line with Standard Model.
The Justices in the majority included Scalia. Charles writes that after the Heller ruling the 'political tone changed dramatically' in Washington.
Whilst Democrats continued to advocate for 'reasonable firearm controls' Republicans 'abandoned their support for gun control altogether'.
The reality is that appeasing the gun lobby is about 'appealing to a broader conservative political base that opposes liberal views, fears government overreach and views the Second Amendment as the last line of defense,' Charles says.
More recently there has been the development of what Charles calls an 'armed faith'. He describes this as the belief in 'unrestrained right to repel force with force and that any impediments to this right does society more harm than good'.
According to Charles this is a 'faith that [believes that] less restrictions on the access, ownership and use of firearms ensures democratic governance, protects all constitutional liberties, such as speech, religion and assembly, and as a matter of public policy is far better than any restrictive alternatives'.
It is also completely wrong, he argues. As Charles sees it, the US should heed the warnings of other countries that America's gun problem is out of control.
The US is first the world in arms ownership per capita and first among developed nations for firearm deaths and mass shootings.
Gun-related deaths happen so frequently that more people have died from them than all the major military conflicts in US history.
Despite this, the last time Congress passed a gun control bill was the assault weapons ban in 1994 - which expired in 2004.
In a searing opening chapter Charles seeks to debunk many NRA-promoted theories about why increased gun ownership is a good thing.
He criticizes the controversial 'Stand Your Ground' laws which were used by George Zimmerman in his defense for killing Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, in 2012.
In fact people living in the late 18th century were legally required to retreat before using deadly force, Charles writes.
Charles is tough on scholars who support the NRA's viewpoint and says they have been writing 'historical errors'.
He writes: 'The history of gun rights was not based on adhering to accepted historical principles such as historical objectivity, the search for the historical truth or a scholarly exchange of ideas.
'Rather, the history of gun rights was principled on legal advocacy, political activism and in the process expanding the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment as broadly as possible.'
Charles says the theory that 'more guns equals less crime' is 'specious'.
He says that out of 160 active shooter situations investigated by the FBI between 2000 and 2013 only 3.1 percent were ended by armed civilians.
More than four times that number, 13.1 percent, was ended by people without guns, according to his research.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Patrick Charles says the Second Amendment does not give us the right to own guns ….. Quick, git a rope!
Saturday, January 27, 2018
DOES HOUSTON NEED 1,000 MORE COPS?
The ability to respond to all calls in a timely manner should determine police manpower needs
By Howie Katz
Big Jolly Times
January 26, 2018
Scott Henson’s ‘Grits for Breakfast’ suggested it may be time to reduce the number of cos in light of falling crime rates. Here is his snippet from Thursday’s GFB:
Justifying more police in an era of declining crime
Recently, the Washington Post pointed out that, despite crime plummeting in the last three decades, the number of police has not declined, wondering aloud, as if for the first time, whether they should. So it's in that context that Grits reads the Houston Chronicle headline, "As crime drops, police chief says HPD needs thousands more on the force." This is preventive excuse making. If crime goes down, Chief Acevedo will surely take credit. But if it goes up, he will say it's because he didn't get his officers, even though the number of index-crimes-per-officer is near its 30-year nadir.
Let's get real. The police can do little about reducing crime other than catching crooks and making sure they are kept locked up. A criminal in jail is one less criminal on the streets.
By having a heavy patrol presence in high crime areas, the police may be able to reduce burglaries and gangbanger shootings somewhat. Most other crime, especially assaults and murders not related to gangs, cannot really be prevented by the police.
'Broken Windows' and stop-and-frisk operations by the police in New York did reduce crime, but because those operations impacted minority communities disproportionately, they are now verboten.
So the crime rate is going to go up and down regardless of a police presence.
And Scott is right about Arcevedo ..... If the crime rate goes down he'll brag about what a wonderful job HPD is doing and if it goes up he'll say it's because he doesn't have enough cops.
Having said that though, Arcevedo is right about needing more cops. With a growing population and countless requests for police services, HPD does not have enough cops to answer even some reported felonies. Asking for 1,000 more cops is not unreasonable for the city of Houston.
The bottom line is that crime rates should not determine the number of cops on the force! The ability to respond to all calls in a timely manner should determine Houston’s or any other city’s police manpower needs.
By Howie Katz
Big Jolly Times
January 26, 2018
Scott Henson’s ‘Grits for Breakfast’ suggested it may be time to reduce the number of cos in light of falling crime rates. Here is his snippet from Thursday’s GFB:
Justifying more police in an era of declining crime
Recently, the Washington Post pointed out that, despite crime plummeting in the last three decades, the number of police has not declined, wondering aloud, as if for the first time, whether they should. So it's in that context that Grits reads the Houston Chronicle headline, "As crime drops, police chief says HPD needs thousands more on the force." This is preventive excuse making. If crime goes down, Chief Acevedo will surely take credit. But if it goes up, he will say it's because he didn't get his officers, even though the number of index-crimes-per-officer is near its 30-year nadir.
Let's get real. The police can do little about reducing crime other than catching crooks and making sure they are kept locked up. A criminal in jail is one less criminal on the streets.
By having a heavy patrol presence in high crime areas, the police may be able to reduce burglaries and gangbanger shootings somewhat. Most other crime, especially assaults and murders not related to gangs, cannot really be prevented by the police.
'Broken Windows' and stop-and-frisk operations by the police in New York did reduce crime, but because those operations impacted minority communities disproportionately, they are now verboten.
So the crime rate is going to go up and down regardless of a police presence.
And Scott is right about Arcevedo ..... If the crime rate goes down he'll brag about what a wonderful job HPD is doing and if it goes up he'll say it's because he doesn't have enough cops.
Having said that though, Arcevedo is right about needing more cops. With a growing population and countless requests for police services, HPD does not have enough cops to answer even some reported felonies. Asking for 1,000 more cops is not unreasonable for the city of Houston.
The bottom line is that crime rates should not determine the number of cops on the force! The ability to respond to all calls in a timely manner should determine Houston’s or any other city’s police manpower needs.
HE ONLY WENT OUT TO PICK UP SOME BBQ AND BOOZE FOR HIS FELLOW INMATES
Escapee nabbed trying to return to federal prison with BBQ and booze
By Monique Batson
Beaumont Enterprise
January 25, 2018
BEAUMONT, Texas -- A Beaumont federal prison inmate nabbed this week in a pasture with a duffle bag filled with chicken sausage, salty snacks and bottles of brandy is looking at extra time behind bars after being charged with escape.
Joshua Hansen, 25, of Dallas was captured Wednesday night by Jefferson County Sheriff's deputies and U.S. Marshals, according to sheriff's department spokeswoman Crystal Holmes.
Hansen, who is incarcerated in Beaumont on narcotics charges, was caught in a joint surveillance effort, Holmes said in a statement.
Non-violent offenders and inmates on work release have walked off from the federal facility "pretty much since Day 1" to get contraband items to bring back in the prison, Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Marcus McLellan said.
The sheriff's office is working with other agencies, including the U.S. Marshals office, to put a stop to it, McLellan said.
A vehicle was spotted sometime after 5:45 p.m. Wednesday driving on private property adjacent to the prison, Holmes said. Someone inside the vehicle dropped a large, black duffle bag and drove off.
Hansen was seen around 7:30 p.m. running across the property and retrieving the bag, which contained home-cooked foods, fruit, packaged snacks, bottles of alcohol and multiple bags of Bugler tobacco, according to Holmes.
Hansen attempted to run back into the prison, but was caught by deputies and arrested, she said.
He was booked at the Jefferson County jail on charges of escape and possession of marijuana, Holmes said. A federal hold was also placed on Hansen, she said.
By Monique Batson
Beaumont Enterprise
January 25, 2018
BEAUMONT, Texas -- A Beaumont federal prison inmate nabbed this week in a pasture with a duffle bag filled with chicken sausage, salty snacks and bottles of brandy is looking at extra time behind bars after being charged with escape.
Joshua Hansen, 25, of Dallas was captured Wednesday night by Jefferson County Sheriff's deputies and U.S. Marshals, according to sheriff's department spokeswoman Crystal Holmes.
Hansen, who is incarcerated in Beaumont on narcotics charges, was caught in a joint surveillance effort, Holmes said in a statement.
Non-violent offenders and inmates on work release have walked off from the federal facility "pretty much since Day 1" to get contraband items to bring back in the prison, Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Marcus McLellan said.
The sheriff's office is working with other agencies, including the U.S. Marshals office, to put a stop to it, McLellan said.
A vehicle was spotted sometime after 5:45 p.m. Wednesday driving on private property adjacent to the prison, Holmes said. Someone inside the vehicle dropped a large, black duffle bag and drove off.
Hansen was seen around 7:30 p.m. running across the property and retrieving the bag, which contained home-cooked foods, fruit, packaged snacks, bottles of alcohol and multiple bags of Bugler tobacco, according to Holmes.
Hansen attempted to run back into the prison, but was caught by deputies and arrested, she said.
He was booked at the Jefferson County jail on charges of escape and possession of marijuana, Holmes said. A federal hold was also placed on Hansen, she said.
DER FUHRER’S ‘MEIN KAMPF’ NOT VERBOTEN IN TEXAS PRISONS
Texas prisons ban over 10,000 books. An Israeli diplomat wants to know why Hitler’s "Mein Kampf" is allowed
By Emma Platoff
The Texas Tribune
December 6, 2017
Donald Trump’s decision Wednesday to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is likely to shake up the Middle East for years to come. In the meantime, a quieter Israeli foreign relations conflict has sprung up in Texas: Consul General of Israel to the Southwest United States Gilad Katz vs. the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Katz hadn’t even arrived at his Houston office on Monday morning when, scanning the headlines in Israeli media, he learned that Adolf Hitler’s infamous manifesto Mein Kampf is permitted in Texas prisons. Meanwhile, a slate of uncontroversial classics — including titles like Where’s Waldo? Santa Spectacular and the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Color Purple — are among more than 10,000 books banned in Texas lockups.
“I thought, ‘I have to do something,’” Katz said.
On Tuesday, he penned a letter to Texas Board of Criminal Justice Chairman Dale Wainwright expressing his deep concern.
“We feel it is inappropriate to include a book from such [a] notorious leader of one of the most murderous regimes in history,” Katz wrote.
He hasn't yet heard back. Jason Clark, the Department of Criminal Justice's deputy chief of staff, would not comment on the letter Wednesday, noting only that "offenders have access to thousands of publications."
Texas' policies on prison reading have long been criticized as arbitrary, even bordering on censorship. When a list of the prison system's banned books was released last month, Texas free speech and criminal justice advocates called out the department for its seemingly subjective decisions.
Books may be banned from Texas prisons for containing certain sexual content, information about the manufacturing of various weapons or material that could be used to execute a criminal scheme, among other reasons.
Clark told The Dallas Morning News last month that "Mein Kampf is on the approved list because it does not violate our rules."
Mein Kampf, which translates to “my struggle,” was written while Hitler himself was in prison and forecasts the murderous dictator’s plans for the Holocaust. The manifesto’s place in public dialogue has long been disputed. Along with a pair of books authored by former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke, it is one of the most controversial titles allowed in Texas prisons.
Katz said that although the policy governs Texas inmates, it is "very, very disturbing" to Israelis.
“Letting [prison inmates] read Mein Kampf is not moral. It’s just not moral,” Katz told the Tribune on Wednesday.
Katz said he hopes to meet with Wainwright to discuss a potential policy change, but isn’t sure what steps he’ll take beyond that.
By Emma Platoff
The Texas Tribune
December 6, 2017
Donald Trump’s decision Wednesday to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is likely to shake up the Middle East for years to come. In the meantime, a quieter Israeli foreign relations conflict has sprung up in Texas: Consul General of Israel to the Southwest United States Gilad Katz vs. the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Katz hadn’t even arrived at his Houston office on Monday morning when, scanning the headlines in Israeli media, he learned that Adolf Hitler’s infamous manifesto Mein Kampf is permitted in Texas prisons. Meanwhile, a slate of uncontroversial classics — including titles like Where’s Waldo? Santa Spectacular and the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Color Purple — are among more than 10,000 books banned in Texas lockups.
“I thought, ‘I have to do something,’” Katz said.
On Tuesday, he penned a letter to Texas Board of Criminal Justice Chairman Dale Wainwright expressing his deep concern.
“We feel it is inappropriate to include a book from such [a] notorious leader of one of the most murderous regimes in history,” Katz wrote.
He hasn't yet heard back. Jason Clark, the Department of Criminal Justice's deputy chief of staff, would not comment on the letter Wednesday, noting only that "offenders have access to thousands of publications."
Texas' policies on prison reading have long been criticized as arbitrary, even bordering on censorship. When a list of the prison system's banned books was released last month, Texas free speech and criminal justice advocates called out the department for its seemingly subjective decisions.
Books may be banned from Texas prisons for containing certain sexual content, information about the manufacturing of various weapons or material that could be used to execute a criminal scheme, among other reasons.
Clark told The Dallas Morning News last month that "Mein Kampf is on the approved list because it does not violate our rules."
Mein Kampf, which translates to “my struggle,” was written while Hitler himself was in prison and forecasts the murderous dictator’s plans for the Holocaust. The manifesto’s place in public dialogue has long been disputed. Along with a pair of books authored by former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke, it is one of the most controversial titles allowed in Texas prisons.
Katz said that although the policy governs Texas inmates, it is "very, very disturbing" to Israelis.
“Letting [prison inmates] read Mein Kampf is not moral. It’s just not moral,” Katz told the Tribune on Wednesday.
Katz said he hopes to meet with Wainwright to discuss a potential policy change, but isn’t sure what steps he’ll take beyond that.
Friday, January 26, 2018
HOLY SHIT! RUSH LIMBAUGH CALLED ME A CRIMINAL
I was listening to Roach Limburger on the way to the post office a little while ago when he told a call-in listener:
“The only people who have flip phones are criminals.”
Because of a visual handicap, I am unable to use a smart phone. I do however keep a flip phone with a large keyboard for emergency purposes only.
Now, being the expert ole Roach claims to be, I’ve just learned after all these years that I am a criminal.
Who says listening to Roach Limburger is a waste of time?
“The only people who have flip phones are criminals.”
Because of a visual handicap, I am unable to use a smart phone. I do however keep a flip phone with a large keyboard for emergency purposes only.
Now, being the expert ole Roach claims to be, I’ve just learned after all these years that I am a criminal.
Who says listening to Roach Limburger is a waste of time?
IS MUELLER SHIFTING FROM RUSSIAN COLLUSION TO DUMP TRUMP FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
Indications are that Robert Mueller is now focusing his investigation on the firing of former FBI Director James Comey as obstruction of justice
by Howie Katz
Big Jolly Times
January 26, 2018
Dark days loom ahead for President Trump. There is the investigation by Robert Mueller. And there are the upcoming midterm elections.
It looks as though Trump is right when he insists there was no collusion with the Russians. But that hasn’t stopped Mueller. Long interviews with Former FBI Director James Comey and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions indicate that the Special Counsel is now going after Trump for obstruction of justice. Comey has already testified before Congress that Trump told him to go easy on former national security adviser Michael Flynn and then fired him when he refused.
Trump has agreed to be interviewed by Mueller. Not a good idea! That’s akin to the defendant in a criminal trial taking the stand in his own defense. There is no telling what will come out of Trump’s uncontrollable mouth.
Even if Mueller’s obstruction of justice investigation fizzles out, there are those upcoming midterm elections. If the Democrats regain control of the House, the first course of business in the lower chamber will be the impeachment of Trump for obstruction of justice. And since it takes only a simple majority of the members present to impeach, there is no doubt that the Democrats will succeed.
Then it’s on to the Senate for the impeachment trial. It is somewhat doubtful that the Democrats will regain control of the Senate, but even if they do, Trump will not be convicted because that requires a two-thirds majority of the members present. The Democrats will not be able to find enough Republican senators to join them in their lust to convict the president.
Bill Clinton survived impeachment for history’s most famous blow job. But Trump is not facing a Monica Lewinsky kind of impeachment case. Obstruction of Justice is far more serious.
Mueller’s investigation could destroy the Trump presidency. Even if not convicted, impeachment by the House will in effect destroy it.
Destruction of the presidency will bode ill for the nation. All Americans should pray this will not happen.
by Howie Katz
Big Jolly Times
January 26, 2018
Dark days loom ahead for President Trump. There is the investigation by Robert Mueller. And there are the upcoming midterm elections.
It looks as though Trump is right when he insists there was no collusion with the Russians. But that hasn’t stopped Mueller. Long interviews with Former FBI Director James Comey and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions indicate that the Special Counsel is now going after Trump for obstruction of justice. Comey has already testified before Congress that Trump told him to go easy on former national security adviser Michael Flynn and then fired him when he refused.
Trump has agreed to be interviewed by Mueller. Not a good idea! That’s akin to the defendant in a criminal trial taking the stand in his own defense. There is no telling what will come out of Trump’s uncontrollable mouth.
Even if Mueller’s obstruction of justice investigation fizzles out, there are those upcoming midterm elections. If the Democrats regain control of the House, the first course of business in the lower chamber will be the impeachment of Trump for obstruction of justice. And since it takes only a simple majority of the members present to impeach, there is no doubt that the Democrats will succeed.
Then it’s on to the Senate for the impeachment trial. It is somewhat doubtful that the Democrats will regain control of the Senate, but even if they do, Trump will not be convicted because that requires a two-thirds majority of the members present. The Democrats will not be able to find enough Republican senators to join them in their lust to convict the president.
Bill Clinton survived impeachment for history’s most famous blow job. But Trump is not facing a Monica Lewinsky kind of impeachment case. Obstruction of Justice is far more serious.
Mueller’s investigation could destroy the Trump presidency. Even if not convicted, impeachment by the House will in effect destroy it.
Destruction of the presidency will bode ill for the nation. All Americans should pray this will not happen.
NO POINT IN CARRYING A BIG STICK IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO THUMP SOMEBODY WITH IT
by Bob Walsh
The Trump Administration, via A. G. Jeff Sessions, has just sent out a threat letter to 23 jurisdictions around the country, including Berkeley, San Francisco and the formerly great state of California, threatening subpoenas if they don't hand over documentation related to their communication with federal authorities over immigration/sanctuary city issues.
The focus of the feds seems to be, for now at least, aimed at specific individuals who were released from custody after a conviction rather than be turned over to ICE and who then went on to commit further criminal acts. As long as Sessions keeps the focus on these particular situations and is in fact WILLING to enforce his subpoena, to the point of sending in U. S. Marshalls with orders to seize documents (and arrest people who interfere) I think he will get a lot of traction, at least with the Trump base.
At some point if the feds are serious they are going to have to thump some heads, figuratively for sure and maybe literally. They should pick their fight carefully, make sure of their footing, and then make their move. When people ask you "Are you willing to fight, and maybe die, on this hill?" if you are serious as some point you have to say YES. If you don't, you are just a candy ass.
The Trump Administration, via A. G. Jeff Sessions, has just sent out a threat letter to 23 jurisdictions around the country, including Berkeley, San Francisco and the formerly great state of California, threatening subpoenas if they don't hand over documentation related to their communication with federal authorities over immigration/sanctuary city issues.
The focus of the feds seems to be, for now at least, aimed at specific individuals who were released from custody after a conviction rather than be turned over to ICE and who then went on to commit further criminal acts. As long as Sessions keeps the focus on these particular situations and is in fact WILLING to enforce his subpoena, to the point of sending in U. S. Marshalls with orders to seize documents (and arrest people who interfere) I think he will get a lot of traction, at least with the Trump base.
At some point if the feds are serious they are going to have to thump some heads, figuratively for sure and maybe literally. They should pick their fight carefully, make sure of their footing, and then make their move. When people ask you "Are you willing to fight, and maybe die, on this hill?" if you are serious as some point you have to say YES. If you don't, you are just a candy ass.
FACK JU GOEHTE
by Bob Walsh
The above is the title of the third film in a very successful series produced in Germany. The European Union court has just ruled that the title of the flick can NOT be copyrighted due to its similarity to the English language vulgarity.
The original decision, which was upheld by the court in Luxembourg, was made by the European Union Intellectual Property Office.
The above is the title of the third film in a very successful series produced in Germany. The European Union court has just ruled that the title of the flick can NOT be copyrighted due to its similarity to the English language vulgarity.
The original decision, which was upheld by the court in Luxembourg, was made by the European Union Intellectual Property Office.
IMPORTANT NOTICE
We no longer call those countries “Shitholes”.
From now on, they will be referred to as “Turd-World Nations.”
But do not refer to the people from turd-world nations as Turds.
It is permissible to refer to cities like Oakland and Stockton, California as Shitholes.
From now on, they will be referred to as “Turd-World Nations.”
But do not refer to the people from turd-world nations as Turds.
It is permissible to refer to cities like Oakland and Stockton, California as Shitholes.
Thursday, January 25, 2018
THE ARROGANCE OF POWER CAN BITE THE POWERFUL ON THE ASS
by Bob Walsh
Elaine Brown is a victim, more or less. Maybe not a totally sympathetic victim as she is a former Black Panther leader, be that as it may. She had a confrontation with Desley Brooks, a member of the Oakland, CA city council a while back and Brooks knocked Brown ass over teakettle. Therein lies the tale.
The two women got in a verbal confrontation at a public restaurant in 2015. Brooks told Brown that a pet project of hers was of "no benefit to black people" and threatened to defund it. Things got a bit heated and Brooks knocked Brown, who is 72 years old, onto her ass into a row of chairs. She required hospitalization and ended up with a torn rotator cuff.
The D. A. refused to file charges but Brown sued and won. A jury gave her $3.78 million in damages, plus an award from Brooks PERSONALLY for $550,000 in punitive damages. Both the city and Brooks are allegedly appealing. Also the city agreed to "sell" to Brown a chunk of city property for $1 to aid her nonprofit in setting up housing and business opportunities for ex-cons.
Elaine Brown is a victim, more or less. Maybe not a totally sympathetic victim as she is a former Black Panther leader, be that as it may. She had a confrontation with Desley Brooks, a member of the Oakland, CA city council a while back and Brooks knocked Brown ass over teakettle. Therein lies the tale.
The two women got in a verbal confrontation at a public restaurant in 2015. Brooks told Brown that a pet project of hers was of "no benefit to black people" and threatened to defund it. Things got a bit heated and Brooks knocked Brown, who is 72 years old, onto her ass into a row of chairs. She required hospitalization and ended up with a torn rotator cuff.
The D. A. refused to file charges but Brown sued and won. A jury gave her $3.78 million in damages, plus an award from Brooks PERSONALLY for $550,000 in punitive damages. Both the city and Brooks are allegedly appealing. Also the city agreed to "sell" to Brown a chunk of city property for $1 to aid her nonprofit in setting up housing and business opportunities for ex-cons.
SHAME, SHAME ON THE HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
The DA’s office refused to accept charges on what appears to be a righteous drug and drug distribution paraphernalia seizure
BarkGrowlBite
January 25, 2018
Recently I was asked for my ideas on the following police investigation report:
__________
On December 14, 2017 at approximately 6:45 pm I, Officer J. Alaniz #915 with the Shoreacres Police Department, was dispatched to 3303 -------- for a felony warrant arrest on M------- M---- (DOB 12-1-89). Dispatch informed me that they received an anonymous call stating that she is currently at said address. Officer Lilley #914 and myself went to the address to make contact with the homeowner. Upon arriving I noticed the garage half opened and a distinct odor emitting from the garage that, through training and experience, lead me to believe there was narcotics present. A male immediately ran to the back and then returned a few moments later and shouted who was outside and that is when my partner made our presence known by saying “POLICE”. We then entered the garage with our weapons drawn and I immediately noticed a small bag of marijuana, black scale and zip lock baggies sitting on the table. Officer Lilley asked the male where M------- M---- was and he replied that she was in the backyard. I identified the male as J--- E--------- (DOB 4-16-88) and Officer Lilley went to the backyard to look for M------- but only found her sister M------ M---- (DOB 7-21-91). M------ told Officer Lilley that she didn’t know where her sister went. I asked E--------- if he had any other narcotics other than what was on the table and he told me no. As I was walking around the garage I noticed a closet door halfway open and when I looked inside I noticed a large gallon size zip lock bag full of a green leafy substance. I then asked M------ for permission to search her purse and she gave me verbal consent. I found a small green container with 5 Xanax pills inside. I contacted the Harris County DA’s office and spoke to ADA C. Lu and explained to her what we had found. ADA Lu told me that she would not accept the charges for the possible narcotics and paraphernalia or for distribution. ADA Lu told me since we were not invited into the garage we can not file charges on E--------- for the green leafy substance found in the garage. The two individuals were released and not charged with a crime. The green leafy substance and paraphernalia was tagged as evidence (D0000886082) and taken to Shoreacres PD. M------- M---- was not located.
__________
This is what I think. If the officers are telling the truth ... shame, shame on the District Attorney's office.
Marijuana gives out a strong distinctive odor. If the cops smelled it coming out of the garage they had probable cause to enter the garage without a search warrant
Of course, it would have been better had they secured a warrant before entering the garage, but waiting for the warrant could have given the suspects time to destroy the evidence.
As for the closet with the half-way open door, the officers had no right to enter without a search warrant or permission of a person legally in charge of the premises. They did not say that an odor was being emitted from the closet. The marijuana inside was not in plain sight. They did not see it until they looked inside. Thus they had no probable cause to enter the closet.
I wonder if this isn't the result of District Attorney Kim Ogg's stated position on pot: Ogg believes the residents of Harris County will be better served by redirecting tax dollars toward the prosecution of violent criminals, not the prosecution of misdemeanor marijuana cases.
While this is clearly not a misdemeanor case, Assistant DA Lu may very well have been influenced by Ogg’s soft-on-pot position and immediately jumped to the conclusion that despite the strong odor of marijuana, the officers had no right to enter the garage.
J--- E--------- was busted 10 times between 2005 and 2015. Seven of those arrests were for possession of marijuana. One was for possession of Xanax and another for distribution of Xanax. And one was for evading arrest in a motor vehicle. On October 30, 2010 he was sentenced to serve 14 months in state jail. This arrest record is only for Harris County. He has probably been arrested in other jurisdictions.
The woman they were looking for was wanted for violation of probation. She was on probation for burglary of a vehicle and abuse of the elderly, a female over 65.
Shame, shame on the district attorney’s office for refusing to file any charges.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Big Jolly Times also had a post on this case. Here are an attorney’s comments on this case:
Kim is NOT anti-cop. What she is big on is the authorities following the law.
I can’t tell from the facts set out in the officer’s narrative but if the defendant was my client, I would be screaming bloody murder over a warrantless intrusion into a home without exigent circumstances. I don’t see any here but I don’t have all of the facts.
Remember, the Supreme Court has said that the Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches and warrantless searches are unreasonable unless they fall into a specific exception to the warrant requirement like search incident to arrest or a warrantless search of a motor vehicle if there is sufficient probable cause to get a warrant.
Cops for years have been screaming every time an assistant district attorney at intake refuses charges. Intake was created in the 1970s to keep crap cases out of the system. It appears from this “narrative” that the ADA considered the legality of the search and determined the officer lacked exigent circumstances.
The Supreme Court also has held that just having an arrest warrant does not give the authorities to enter a residence other than the residence of the person named in the warrant. Getting a tip from an unnamed source to a dispatcher that someone with an open warrant is at someone else’s home isn’t sufficient to allow the police to search the third person’s property. If they had seen 10 kilos of cocaine on the kitchen table, the result should have been the same.
The bottom line is that the constitution, that pesky document, has a preference for searches and arrests approved by neutral judges rather than allowing the police to act on their own.
BarkGrowlBite
January 25, 2018
Recently I was asked for my ideas on the following police investigation report:
__________
On December 14, 2017 at approximately 6:45 pm I, Officer J. Alaniz #915 with the Shoreacres Police Department, was dispatched to 3303 -------- for a felony warrant arrest on M------- M---- (DOB 12-1-89). Dispatch informed me that they received an anonymous call stating that she is currently at said address. Officer Lilley #914 and myself went to the address to make contact with the homeowner. Upon arriving I noticed the garage half opened and a distinct odor emitting from the garage that, through training and experience, lead me to believe there was narcotics present. A male immediately ran to the back and then returned a few moments later and shouted who was outside and that is when my partner made our presence known by saying “POLICE”. We then entered the garage with our weapons drawn and I immediately noticed a small bag of marijuana, black scale and zip lock baggies sitting on the table. Officer Lilley asked the male where M------- M---- was and he replied that she was in the backyard. I identified the male as J--- E--------- (DOB 4-16-88) and Officer Lilley went to the backyard to look for M------- but only found her sister M------ M---- (DOB 7-21-91). M------ told Officer Lilley that she didn’t know where her sister went. I asked E--------- if he had any other narcotics other than what was on the table and he told me no. As I was walking around the garage I noticed a closet door halfway open and when I looked inside I noticed a large gallon size zip lock bag full of a green leafy substance. I then asked M------ for permission to search her purse and she gave me verbal consent. I found a small green container with 5 Xanax pills inside. I contacted the Harris County DA’s office and spoke to ADA C. Lu and explained to her what we had found. ADA Lu told me that she would not accept the charges for the possible narcotics and paraphernalia or for distribution. ADA Lu told me since we were not invited into the garage we can not file charges on E--------- for the green leafy substance found in the garage. The two individuals were released and not charged with a crime. The green leafy substance and paraphernalia was tagged as evidence (D0000886082) and taken to Shoreacres PD. M------- M---- was not located.
__________
This is what I think. If the officers are telling the truth ... shame, shame on the District Attorney's office.
Marijuana gives out a strong distinctive odor. If the cops smelled it coming out of the garage they had probable cause to enter the garage without a search warrant
Of course, it would have been better had they secured a warrant before entering the garage, but waiting for the warrant could have given the suspects time to destroy the evidence.
As for the closet with the half-way open door, the officers had no right to enter without a search warrant or permission of a person legally in charge of the premises. They did not say that an odor was being emitted from the closet. The marijuana inside was not in plain sight. They did not see it until they looked inside. Thus they had no probable cause to enter the closet.
I wonder if this isn't the result of District Attorney Kim Ogg's stated position on pot: Ogg believes the residents of Harris County will be better served by redirecting tax dollars toward the prosecution of violent criminals, not the prosecution of misdemeanor marijuana cases.
While this is clearly not a misdemeanor case, Assistant DA Lu may very well have been influenced by Ogg’s soft-on-pot position and immediately jumped to the conclusion that despite the strong odor of marijuana, the officers had no right to enter the garage.
J--- E--------- was busted 10 times between 2005 and 2015. Seven of those arrests were for possession of marijuana. One was for possession of Xanax and another for distribution of Xanax. And one was for evading arrest in a motor vehicle. On October 30, 2010 he was sentenced to serve 14 months in state jail. This arrest record is only for Harris County. He has probably been arrested in other jurisdictions.
The woman they were looking for was wanted for violation of probation. She was on probation for burglary of a vehicle and abuse of the elderly, a female over 65.
Shame, shame on the district attorney’s office for refusing to file any charges.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Big Jolly Times also had a post on this case. Here are an attorney’s comments on this case:
Kim is NOT anti-cop. What she is big on is the authorities following the law.
I can’t tell from the facts set out in the officer’s narrative but if the defendant was my client, I would be screaming bloody murder over a warrantless intrusion into a home without exigent circumstances. I don’t see any here but I don’t have all of the facts.
Remember, the Supreme Court has said that the Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches and warrantless searches are unreasonable unless they fall into a specific exception to the warrant requirement like search incident to arrest or a warrantless search of a motor vehicle if there is sufficient probable cause to get a warrant.
Cops for years have been screaming every time an assistant district attorney at intake refuses charges. Intake was created in the 1970s to keep crap cases out of the system. It appears from this “narrative” that the ADA considered the legality of the search and determined the officer lacked exigent circumstances.
The Supreme Court also has held that just having an arrest warrant does not give the authorities to enter a residence other than the residence of the person named in the warrant. Getting a tip from an unnamed source to a dispatcher that someone with an open warrant is at someone else’s home isn’t sufficient to allow the police to search the third person’s property. If they had seen 10 kilos of cocaine on the kitchen table, the result should have been the same.
The bottom line is that the constitution, that pesky document, has a preference for searches and arrests approved by neutral judges rather than allowing the police to act on their own.
STOCKTON AND OAKLAND SHOW WHY IT’S CALLED KOOKFORNIA
California city to give some families $500 a month
Associated Press
January 23, 2018
STOCKTON, Calif. – A California city plans to give several dozen families $500 a month for a year as part of a program to study the economic and social impacts of giving people a basic income.
The program in Stockton will track what residents do with the money and how having a universal basic income affects their self-esteem and identity, San Francisco radio station KQED reported .
The Economic Security Project, co-led by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, is contributing $1 million to Stockton's yearlong research project.
Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs is coordinating the effort in his city of 300,000 people where 1 in 4 residents live below the poverty line.
Residents in the city east of San Francisco are coping with wage stagnation, rising housing prices, loss of jobs and the looming threat of automation, Tubbs said.
"I think Stockton is absolutely ground zero for a lot of the issues we are facing as a nation," he said.
Stockton racked up millions in debt on development projects in the past, which got the city into trouble, Tubbs said. The city declared bankruptcy in 2012.
"We've overspent on things like arenas and marinas and things of that sort to try to lure in tourism and dollars that way," he said.
Tubbs said the basic income experiment will show that Stockton's best bet is to invest in its own people.
In some politically liberal corners of the country, including Hawaii and the San Francisco Bay area, the idea of distributing a guaranteed income has begun to gain support.
In Oakland, California, Y Combinator, a startup incubator, is giving about $1,500 a month to a handful of people selected randomly and will soon expand distribution to 100 recipients. It eventually plans to provide $1,000 monthly to 1,000 people and study how recipients spend their time and how their financial health and well-being are affected.
Dorian Warren, who co-chairs the Economic Security Project, said the goal in Stockton is to gather data on how having a basic income impacts people.
"What does it mean to say, 'Here is unconditional guaranteed income just based on you being a human being?' " Warren asked.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is not as kooky as Richmond, California in 2016 paying criminals not to commit crime and Sacramento appropriating $1.5 million last year to pay its criminals not to commit crimes.
Associated Press
January 23, 2018
STOCKTON, Calif. – A California city plans to give several dozen families $500 a month for a year as part of a program to study the economic and social impacts of giving people a basic income.
The program in Stockton will track what residents do with the money and how having a universal basic income affects their self-esteem and identity, San Francisco radio station KQED reported .
The Economic Security Project, co-led by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, is contributing $1 million to Stockton's yearlong research project.
Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs is coordinating the effort in his city of 300,000 people where 1 in 4 residents live below the poverty line.
Residents in the city east of San Francisco are coping with wage stagnation, rising housing prices, loss of jobs and the looming threat of automation, Tubbs said.
"I think Stockton is absolutely ground zero for a lot of the issues we are facing as a nation," he said.
Stockton racked up millions in debt on development projects in the past, which got the city into trouble, Tubbs said. The city declared bankruptcy in 2012.
"We've overspent on things like arenas and marinas and things of that sort to try to lure in tourism and dollars that way," he said.
Tubbs said the basic income experiment will show that Stockton's best bet is to invest in its own people.
In some politically liberal corners of the country, including Hawaii and the San Francisco Bay area, the idea of distributing a guaranteed income has begun to gain support.
In Oakland, California, Y Combinator, a startup incubator, is giving about $1,500 a month to a handful of people selected randomly and will soon expand distribution to 100 recipients. It eventually plans to provide $1,000 monthly to 1,000 people and study how recipients spend their time and how their financial health and well-being are affected.
Dorian Warren, who co-chairs the Economic Security Project, said the goal in Stockton is to gather data on how having a basic income impacts people.
"What does it mean to say, 'Here is unconditional guaranteed income just based on you being a human being?' " Warren asked.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is not as kooky as Richmond, California in 2016 paying criminals not to commit crime and Sacramento appropriating $1.5 million last year to pay its criminals not to commit crimes.
HYATT HOTELS INCLUDED AS SEX TRAFFICKING DEFENDANT IN HOUSTON LAWSUIT
Sex trafficking victim suing truck stops, hotel for profiting from her suffering
By Jessica Willey
KTRK
January 23, 2018
HOUSTON, Texas -- A sex trafficking victim from Houston is taking Backpage.com and several well-known truck stops and hotel chains to court, claiming they profited from her suffering.
The alleged victim, identified only as "Jane Doe #1," is suing the classifieds website as well as Hyatt Hotels, Love's Travel Stops and Pilot Travel Centers, among others, in the lawsuit filed Tuesday afternoon.
According to the petition, "Jane Doe #1" is an adult now, but in 2014, she was not even 16 years old and forced into sex slavery. The lawsuit states she was advertised on Backpage.com or trafficked at truck stops and hotels. The businesses sold ads, gas, and hotel rooms and were aware, the lawsuit claims, of what was really happening.
"The facts are going to show they knowingly profited from human trafficking," said Annie McAdams, the plaintiff's lead counsel. "As a mother, I've had it. It is about stopping human trafficking. I can't be any more clear."
Just two defendants responded to requests for comment from Eyewitness News.
"Love's Travel Stops just received news of this lawsuit. We take these matters seriously and are looking into it," wrote Kealey Dorian, of Love's, in an email.
"We appreciate your inquiry, but will not have a response at this time. This is the first we are hearing of this matter and are looking into it," Stephanie Myers, External Communications Supervisor with Pilot Flying J said, also in an email.
The lawsuit is believed to be the first of its kind in Texas. Houston is widely-known as a trafficking hub. Julie Waters, the founder of Free the Captives, a faith-based nonprofit fighting teenage human trafficking in Houston, praises the court action.
"I think it's a really great strategy. The more you can do to fight sex trafficking, the better because you have to tackle it from all different angles," said Waters.
The lawsuit seeks more than $1 million, but winning would yield more than money, according to victim's advocate and attorney Ann Johnson.
"You start to end human trafficking when you start to hit them where it hurts," Johnson said.
Houston police rescued "Jane Doe #1." She is now in recovery, said McAdams.
By Jessica Willey
KTRK
January 23, 2018
HOUSTON, Texas -- A sex trafficking victim from Houston is taking Backpage.com and several well-known truck stops and hotel chains to court, claiming they profited from her suffering.
The alleged victim, identified only as "Jane Doe #1," is suing the classifieds website as well as Hyatt Hotels, Love's Travel Stops and Pilot Travel Centers, among others, in the lawsuit filed Tuesday afternoon.
According to the petition, "Jane Doe #1" is an adult now, but in 2014, she was not even 16 years old and forced into sex slavery. The lawsuit states she was advertised on Backpage.com or trafficked at truck stops and hotels. The businesses sold ads, gas, and hotel rooms and were aware, the lawsuit claims, of what was really happening.
"The facts are going to show they knowingly profited from human trafficking," said Annie McAdams, the plaintiff's lead counsel. "As a mother, I've had it. It is about stopping human trafficking. I can't be any more clear."
Just two defendants responded to requests for comment from Eyewitness News.
"Love's Travel Stops just received news of this lawsuit. We take these matters seriously and are looking into it," wrote Kealey Dorian, of Love's, in an email.
"We appreciate your inquiry, but will not have a response at this time. This is the first we are hearing of this matter and are looking into it," Stephanie Myers, External Communications Supervisor with Pilot Flying J said, also in an email.
The lawsuit is believed to be the first of its kind in Texas. Houston is widely-known as a trafficking hub. Julie Waters, the founder of Free the Captives, a faith-based nonprofit fighting teenage human trafficking in Houston, praises the court action.
"I think it's a really great strategy. The more you can do to fight sex trafficking, the better because you have to tackle it from all different angles," said Waters.
The lawsuit seeks more than $1 million, but winning would yield more than money, according to victim's advocate and attorney Ann Johnson.
"You start to end human trafficking when you start to hit them where it hurts," Johnson said.
Houston police rescued "Jane Doe #1." She is now in recovery, said McAdams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)