Randy Taylor warns Americans of a more immediate threat than Global Warming:
"Islamic organizations are carefully orchestrating lawsuits, marches, large propaganda campaigns all across the nation. Islamic schools and mosques are being built in record numbers across the nation with Saudi oil money being funneled into the US legally. Islam is on the march. The submission of the great country of the United States to Islam has begun just as planned. Just as we were warned by Osama bin Laden, Islam is using Americas own laws and freedoms to destroy us."
The Fall updates Americans on the current domestic threat… Well worth the read...
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Randy Taylor warns Americans of a more immediate threat than Global Warming:
Jacques Chirac, the French President, is sitting in his office when his telephone rings.
"Hallo, Mr. Chirac!" a heavily accented voice said. “This is Paddy down at the Harp Pub in County Mayo, Ireland. I am ringing you to inform you that we are officially declaring war on you and your country."
"Well, Paddy," Chirac replied, "This is indeed important news! How big is your army?"
"Right now," says Paddy, after a moment's calculation, "there is myself, me Cousin Sean, me next-door neighbor Seamus, and the entire darts team from the pub. That makes eight!"
Chirac paused, "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 100,000 men in my army, waiting to move on my command."
"Begoora!" says Paddy, "I'll have to ring you back."
Sure enough, the next day, Paddy calls again, "Mr. Chirac, the war is still on. We have managed to get us some infantry equipment!"
"And what equipment would that be, Paddy?" Chirac asks. "Well, we have two combines, a bulldozer, and Murphy's farm tractor."
Chirac sighs, amused, "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 6,000 tanks and 5,000 armored personnel carriers. Also, I have increased my army to 150,000 since we last spoke." "Saints preserve us!" says Paddy, "I'll have to get back to you."
Sure enough, Paddy rings again the next day. "Mr. Chirac, the war's still on! We've managed to get ourselves airborne. We've modified Jackie McLaughlin's ultra-light with a couple of shotguns in the cockpit, and four boys from the Shamrock Bar have joined us, as well!"
Chirac was silent for a minute and then cleared his throat. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 100 bombers and 200 fighter planes. My military bases are surrounded by laser-guided, surface-to-air missile sites. And since we last spoke, I have increased my army to 200,000!"
"Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!" says Paddy, "I'll have to ring you back."
Sure enough, Paddy calls again the next day. "Top o' the mornin', Mr. Chirac, I'm sorry to inform you that we've had to call off the war."
"Really? I'm sorry to hear that," says Chirac. "Why the sudden change of heart?"
"Well," says Paddy, "We had a long chat over a few pints of Guinness, and decided there's no fookin' way we can feed 200,000 prisoners!
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The Part I took in Defence of Capt. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right.
A group of undercover officers working in a gun- and drug-plagued strip joint in Queens had good reason to believe that a party leaving the club was armed and about to shoot an adversary. When one of the undercovers identified himself as an officer, the car holding the party twice tried to run him down. The officer started firing while yelling to the car’s occupants: “Let me see your hands.” His colleagues, believing they were under attack, fired as well, eventually shooting off 50 rounds and killing the driver, Sean Bell. No gun was found in the car, but witnesses and video footage confirm that a fourth man in the party fled the scene once the altercation began. Bell and the other men with him all had been arrested for illegal possession of guns in the past; one of Bell’s companions that night, Joseph Guzman, had spent considerable time in prison, including for an armed robbery in which he shot at his victim.
When future president John Adams defended British troops involved in the Boston Massacre, the American jury acquitted the troops NOT because the shooting hadn’t occurred, but because the troops who fired the fatal shots had followed King George’s policies. Adams and the jurors demonstrated tremendous courage before colonists who, like Hutchinson today, preferred a simple hanging over a careful examination of policy, procedure, and the law. And while a good hanging might satisfy Hutchinson and his angry mob today, it has little effect on tomorrow.
Warren Christopher proved this in 1991. Had Christopher served King George III in 1770, he might have recommended an “independent commission” to blame a handful of “problem troops” for the shooting. Such a finding would have been expedient for King George, for Boston was then predominantly loyalist. But by exposing British policy, Adams helped colonists understand that their problem rested not with a handful of “problem troops,” but with the King of England himself.
This helps us understand why the Rampart Scandal (1997) occurred so soon after the Christopher Commission Report (1991). Had Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley not appointed his own lawyer to investigate the LAPD, it is possible that an independent commission might have implicated the mayor and his police commission’s brutal policies just as the Walker Commission had done in Chicago (1968). Warren Christopher had been in Chicago during the so-called “police riots” and did not forget how Walker had exposed Chicago Mayor Daly. So it’s hard to imagine that Christopher wasn’t thinking about Daly when he offered to investigate the Rodney King beating for his long-time client and personal friend, Tom Bradley. And if Christopher had exposed his client to civil or criminal liability, his law practice would have been jeopardized. This blatant conflict was ignored by everyone involved.
When Bradley’s lawyer blamed the “44 problem officers” for LAPD brutality, LA’s leftist media, the ACLU, and a hundred trial lawyers and university professors were only too willing to play along. After all, they hated LAPD independence, which threatened to close in on Bradley’s political corruption. And because the Christopher Commission Report did not address the real problems in LA, voters have since been subjected to continuing abuses that were rooted not in “bad cops” as Christopher had blamed, but with Bradley’s reckless hiring practices (affirmative action) and brutal use-of-force policies that were not disclosed until the case went to trial. And even after they were exposed, the media suppressed the evidence that the jurors used to acquit the officers.
In 1770 Boston, John Adams blamed King George. In 1991 Los Angeles, Mayor Bradley’s lawyer blamed the troops. LA residents got their hanging, but Bradley’s deceit resulted in a multi-billion dollar riot (one billion in damage, one billion in tourism) and nearly $200 million in lawsuits from false arrests and abuses from the Rampart Scandal that was already brewing but still completely ignored.
If we can imagine Ken Lay hiring Arthur Andersen to investigate the Enron Scandal, we will appreciate the relationship between Mayor Bradley, his lawyer, and the Rodney King beating.
Despite the complementary and self-serving reports of LAPD abuses between the LA Times, Christopher Commission, ACLU, and others, no court has ever admitted the Christopher Commission Report into evidence and no meaningful recommendation has been implemented. The Christopher Commission Report is, today, little more than one worthless document used to support other worthless documents. Those reports are largely responsible for the continuing dysfunction, wasted tax dollars, ineffective law enforcement, and sluggish recruitment.
Since 1992, liberal Democrats have enjoyed exclusive control, crippling the LAPD with tedious consent decrees, frustrated inspector generals, and incompetent or ambitious chiefs of police. And whenever bad policy is questioned, the liberals in charge blame spurious accounts of racial profiling and bad cops.
But instead of exhibiting the temperament of John Adams, Earl Ofari Hutchinson joins Judas horses like Al Sharpton to distract us from city officials to demand police blood. By exploiting and celebrating activist blacks, liberal politicians can blame cops rather than the misguided policies they impose on the communities they ostensibly serve.
But expectations, not to mention witness testimony, seemingly unimpeachable evidence, and even the official condemnation of the deadly shooting by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg won't guarantee that Isnora and the other two officers indicted are convicted. It's easy to see why. When cops go on trial for overuse of deadly force, their victims are generally poor blacks and Latinos.
Most cops do what they’re told. If voters want cops to stop a quota of five whites, six Latinos, and two blacks every day they can do it. But if they want cops to prevent crime they have to let cops investigate criminal behavior. Do liberals want cops to conduct race-based stops to alleviate racial anxiety, or investigate criminal behavior?
The attorneys that defend (police officers) are top gun defense attorneys, and have had much experience defending police officers accused of misconduct. Police unions pay them and they spare no expense in their defense. The cops rarely serve any pre-trial jail time, and are released on ridiculously low bail. During jury selection, their attorneys seek to get as many whites on the panel as possible.
The presumption is that white jurors are much more likely to be middle-class, and conservative, and much more likely to believe the testimony of police and prosecution witnesses than black witnesses, defendants, or even the victims. The same rule applies to black or Latino jurors, and both may be represented on the New York cop's jury. They are generally middle-class, and share the same biases toward those they perceive as the criminal element as many whites.Despite the questionable merits of jury nullification, middle class jurors are less likely to ignore evidence to convict the innocent or acquit the guilty. John Adams saw the value of assembling a jury from outside of Boston. A jury of Boston hangmen would have made a trial pointless. And had a Boston jury acquitted the defendants, their own lives and professions might have been jeopardized. Even Adams’ law practice suffered from defending the British troops. But while their conviction would have made Bostonians happier in the short run, it would have weakened America’s justification for independence. The jury correctly acquitted the British troops.
Prosecutors have a big task in trying to overcome the pro-police attitudes, and the negative racial stereotypes of middle-class jurors. A 2003 Penn State University study found that many whites are likely to associate pictures of blacks with violent crimes, and in some cases where crimes were not committed by blacks they misidentified the perpetrator as an African-American.
The frequent media portrayal of young blacks and Latinos as crime-prone, drug-dealing gangsters, the gang and murder violence that continues to wrack many black neighborhoods, and the glorification of the thug lifestyle by many young blacks reinforces negative racial perceptions. Almost certainly, defense attorneys will try and type Bell and his two companions in that manner. This makes many whites, non-blacks and even many older blacks guarded, suspicious and fearful of young blacks.
But jurors should be concerned with the evidence of what drove officers to fear for their lives and fire their weapons. Bell’s behavior, and the officers’ response as it relates to NYPD policy, is more relevant than the skin color or stereotypes that Hutchinson prefers to focus.
There is no ironclad standard of what is or isn't acceptable use of force. It often comes down to a judgment call by the officer. In the Rodney King beating case in 1992 in which four LAPD officers stood trial, defense attorneys turned the tables and painted King as the aggressor and claimed that the level of force used against him was justified.
The four New York City cops tried for gunning down African immigrant, Amadou Diallo in 1999, also claimed that they feared for their lives. The jury believed them and acquitted them. In Cincinnati, a municipal judge summarily acquitted white Cincinnati police officer, Stephen Roach of criminal charges in the slaying of 19-year-old Timothy Thomas during a traffic pursuit in 2001. The shooting ignited three days of riots. The judge bought Roach's tale that he feared for his life, and fired in self-defense.
In the Bell case, Kasaryk and the other officer's attorneys almost certainly will use the same tact and argue that the officers feared for their lives when they fired. In his initial call to a supervising police lieutenant, Isnora said he thought one of the suspects had a gun, made a suspicious move, and that the car they were in bumped him.
The code of silence is another powerful obstacle to convicting bad cops. Officers hide behind it and refuse to testify against other officers, or tailor their testimony to put the officer's action in the best possible light.
Prosecutors often are barred from using statements made during internal investigations of officer misconduct in court proceedings on grounds of self-incrimination. This knocks out another potentially crucial prosecution weapon.
Federal prosecutors that retried the officers that beat King learned a vital lesson from the abysmal failure of local prosecutors to convict them. They did not rely exclusively on the videotape but on expert testimony on the use of force to prove that the officers went way over the top against King. Yet despite the massive time, resources, and care they devoted to the case, they still only managed to convict two of the four officers.
The federal trial was an obvious political compromise. After all, how can two of the four defendants be convicted of violating Rodney King’s civil rights while two are acquitted. The four acted together. They are either all guilty, or innocent.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson doesn’t care about evidence or civil rights. His outcome-based sensibilities make him an unsuitable juror and an incompetent defender of civil rights. He expresses many of the same attitudes that made LAPD Officer Rafael Perez an unsuitable candidate for law enforcement.
Like Kevin Gaines, Rafael Perez, and David Mack, Earl Ofari Hutchinson would have made a lousy cop.
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 11:37 PM
Aaron Hanscom has written a revealing article about LAUSD’s anti-American behavior against Roosevelt High School’s Junior ROTC members:
History teacher Martha Guerrero’s class is even worse. The 11th grader Flores, a master sergeant and JROTC flag detail commander, told The Times that Guerrero often directs hostile questions to him in class. These questions include, “Jesse, are you going to go to Iraq and die?” and “Why are you wearing a uniform? Aren’t you embarrassed?” Guerrero sees nothing wrong with her bullying. In fact, hostile questioning is a tactic endorsed by the anti-JROTC crusaders. CAMS approves of students asking JROTC teachers questions like, "What is the difference between murder and what our military is doing in Baghdad?" and "Why does the military use chemical weapons in Fallujah and torture people in prison camps?" In the warped minds of the LAUSD radicals, such questions aren’t even open for debate. As Guerrero told Sgt. Otto Harrington, the senior JROTC teacher at Roosevelt, “I just tell them things I know are right or wrong. I stand against war, against JROTC.”It is bad enough that LAUSD uses their $19 billion budget to cripple fifty percent of their students, but their anti-American behavior demands incarceration. America is at war, especially at home.
Of course Guerrero, like many avowed pacifists, isn’t against all war. Although she often wears a “War is not the answer” t-shirt in class, she has a flag of Ernesto “Che” Guevara hanging in her classroom. Guerrero evidently misses the hypocrisy of an antiwar activist admiring a man who wanted to start a third world war in the name of Communism.
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 10:51 PM
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Here’s a Muslim cashier who refuses to scan the bacon at the check-out counter:
She made me scan the bacon. Then she opened the bag and made me put it in the bag, said Dsouza, 53, of Minneapolis. It made me wonder why this person took a job as a cashier.No wonder her dog-walking gig didn't work out.
But seriously, her stupidity is deliberate. She knows that Target sells pork products but pursued employment there anyway. Islamic clerics apparently hope to further isolate Muslims from mainstream American culture.
Islam redefines primitive.
Another video from the "religion of peace."
If Islam was truly a religion of peace, their leaders would prevent such behaviors. If they cannot reform themselves, other people must impose reform, or exterminate them.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Fox has already started striking back at John for saying no. (There's a surprise - Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes - the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel - said that any candidate "who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake" and "is impeding freedom of speech and free press."If one of America’s premier news agencies terrifies democrats like Edwards, how can we expect them to face REAL threats? When Edwards is confronted by Al Qaeda, Iran, Russia, China and North Korea, does he plan to visit France instead?
Phyllis Chesler has written about how Islam seduced and almost destroyed her:
Once I was held captive in Kabul. I was the bride of a charming, seductive and Westernised Afghan Muslim whom I met at an American college. The purdah I experienced was relatively posh but the sequestered all-female life was not my cup of chai — nor was the male hostility to veiled, partly veiled and unveiled women in public.
When we landed in Kabul, an airport official smoothly confiscated my US passport. “Don’t worry, it’s just a formality,” my husband assured me. I never saw that passport again. I later learnt that this was routinely done to foreign wives — perhaps to make it impossible for them to leave. Overnight, my husband became a stranger. The man with whom I had discussed Camus, Dostoevsky, Tennessee Williams and the Italian cinema became a stranger. He treated me the same way his father and elder brother treated their wives: distantly, with a hint of disdain and embarrassment.
Read more HERE - H/T Joyce
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Glen Greenwald writes that Frank Gaffney has perpetuated an Internet myth:
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.Unless lefties are mistaken, Abe Lincoln never said it. So let me be perfectly clear:
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
Now you know where you heard it.
American patriot & career public servant
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 8:05 PM
Saturday, March 10, 2007
The San Francisco Police Department has stopped analyzing data collected during routine traffic stops.
The San Francisco Chronicle found blacks and Hispanics were 2.5 times more likely to be searched than whites when they were stopped. The rate for black people had dropped since the ACLU study. The rate for Hispanics was about the same. Asians were rarely searched.I’m glad to see that Chief Heather Fong has stopped chasing her tail. Of SFPD’s 79 wanted suspects on this date, no more than six are white. Either Heather and her cops are really racist, or San Francisco’s criminal element is darker than an affirmative action program on crack.
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 5:16 PM
LA Weekly’s Michael Krikorian penned a revealing story on the Mayor Villaraigosa’s silly “top ten” gang list:
Daude Sherrills, a former Grape Street Crip turned community activist, agreed, saying, “I seen that funny-ass list, but it didn’t amount to nothing, just some more political rhetoric.” Sherrills said his family moved into the tough Jordan Downs housing project when it was new, in 1942. Today, he said, “They spend a billion dollars to arrest a (gangster), but they don’t spend enough to educate (him).”
Good point. LAUSD’s annual budget (including construction) is almost four times that of LA City’s entire budget. If LAUSD’s $19 billion is divided by its students, parents would have a $24,000 voucher with which to send their children to school. That $24,000 would go much further per child than what UTLA and LAUSD are now wasting on them.
This is an important read for anyone who wants to know the skinny on LA’s gang insurgency.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Many Republicans, especially heterosexual white men, appreciate Ann Coulter because she says things that would have gotten them pilloried for the past thirty years. Coulter’s comment clearly referred to limp-wristed, spineless, whiney philosophical fags rather than homosexuality. Thoughtful Democrats understand that and so should Republicans.
As a former cop and marine, I’ve been the target of much so-called hate speech. But I know who I am and I don’t lose sleep over what people call me. Most grown-ups learned about sticks and stones when they were children. I know, just as thoughtful homosexuals know, what and who Coulter referred to. Coulter’s comments were targeted toward a married heterosexual democrat trial lawyer of questionable moral character and NOT West Hollywood gays.
It’s also hard for me to get excited about Ann’s comments with the blatant anti-Semitic venom that flows so freely throughout our Democrat-controlled schools and universities. Islamic students have re-introduced KKK-era speech about Israel, Jews, and Republicans, while Democrat administrators sit back like Jim Crow jurors (e.g. democrats) deciding a lynching case: Which is why they feign outrage over benign comments made by America's bona fide civil rights champions (or their celebrities).
Democrats expect conservatives to vilify Coulter, Limbaugh, and others who exercise their First Amendment rights. Democrats hope that our racial paranoia will coerce us to demonstrate our own personal “multicultural virtue” by vilifying her, and that any defense of Coulter somehow implicates her defenders as anti-gay, anti-black (choose one or more).
Because I have been forced to defend hateful gays, blacks, Latinos (everyone but white Americans), I have no problem defending Coulter’s right to say what she said, in the full context of what she said. And if anyone thinks that my defense of Coulter makes me anti-gay, that is their problem, not mine.
Courage is always lonelier than cowardice. It takes courage to stand up for other people’s rights, and I’m ashamed that so many Republicans show less courage than Democrats who celebrate America’s real degenerates and real enemies.
The First Amendment belongs to us all, not just a minority of paranoid protected classes or the Democrats who continue to exploit them. It is time that Republicans show some courage!
"The truth is what drives our judicial system. If people don't come forward and tell the truth, we have no hope of making the judicial system work."
(Maybe that explains why DEMOCRAT SENATORS unanimously voted to acquit Bill Clinton.)
While juries are encouraged to ignore evidence to acquit the guilty, the dark side of jury nullification permits juries to convict the factually innocent. Perjury is a specific-intent crime. Cheney didn't leak the info, Armitage did - and he wasn't prosecuted.
Michael Moore wins the Palm d'Or, Arafat and Carter win the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore wins an Oscar, and Fitzgerald wins a conviction. America - wadda country! Sometimes I wonder why I supported and defended quaint irrelevant notions like the US Constitution.
How very very sad...
Posted by ex-Hollywood Liberal at 11:12 AM
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The Daily News reports that Spider was arrested with a pound of methamphetamine. Spider, also known as Mario Corona, is paid by LA City officials to help gang members go legit as part of LA's $3.7 million dollar gang intervention programs.
Critics say the arrest reveals the inherent problems of hiring former gangsters to mentor current ones - with many of them keeping one foot in the old lifestyle.How do you spell, DUHHHHH?
Civil rights attorney Connie Rice, whose $500,000 study earlier this year on the city's ability to fight gangs found the efforts piecemeal, inefficient and lacking oversight, described the arrest of Corona as one bad apple.Uh, no Connie – gang members must be removed from society completely. Juvenile offenders should be placed in highly disciplined boarding schools far from other gang members and the gang lifestyle and influence.
"I think this was a case of somebody living a double life," said Rice, who called Communities in Schools one of the best such programs in L.A. And though Corona was not an intervention worker, she said many of the programs need former gang members.
The LAPD reports that Arash Semerome Safaie has been added to LAPD’s top ten list, which got me thinking:
Assuming that 1) LA’s 40,000 gang members do not gain ANY new members after today AND 2) the LAPD arrests one of the top ten each week AND, 3) one gang member kills another every day, the City of LA will shut down gangs by 2203 (96 years).
I figure that will probably happen about the time that LA liberals will fix LA’s air and water pollution, failing public schools, gridlock, crime, and stop raising taxes.
I’ve marked my calendar.