bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘THE WALL STREET JOURNAL’

IS THERE A HITLER IN YOUR CEO?

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 27, 2015 at 4:19 pm

Would-be CEOs and Fuehrers, listen up: Character is destiny.

Case in point: The ultimate Fuehrer and CEO, Adolf Hitler.

Ever since he shot himself in his underground Berlin bunker on April 30, 1945, historians have fiercely debated: Was der Fuehrer a military genius or an imbecile?

With literally thousands of titles to choose, the average reader may feel overwhelmed.  But if you’re looking for an understandable, overall view of Hitler’s generalship, an excellent choice would be How Hitler Could Have Won World War II by Bevin Alexander.

Among “the fatal errors that led to Nazi defeat” (as proclaimed on the book jacket) were:

  • Wasting hundreds of Luftwaffe pilots, fighters and bombers in a half-hearted attempt to conquer England.
  • Ignoring the pleas of generals like Erwin Rommel to conquer Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia–thus giving Germany control of most of the world’s oil.
  • Attacking his ally, the Soviet Union, while still at war with Great Britain.
  • Needlessly turning millions of Russians into enemies rather than allies by his brutal and murderous policies.
  • Declaring war on the United States after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.  (Had he not done so, Americans would have focused all their attention on conquering Japan.)
  • Refusing to negotiate a separate peace with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin–thus granting Germany a large portion of captured Russian territory in exchange for letting Stalin remain in power.
  • Insisting on a “not one step back” military “strategy” that led to the unnecessary surrounding, capture and/or deaths of hundreds of thousands of German servicemen.

As the war turned increasingly against him, Hitler became ever more rigid in his thinking.

He demanded absolute control over the smallest details of his forces.  This, in turn, led to astounding and needless losses in German soldiers.

One such incident was immortalized in the 1962 movie, The Longest Day, about the Allied invasion of France known as D-Day.

On June 6, 1944, Rommel ordered the panzer tanks to drive the Allies from the Normandy beaches.  But these could not be released except on direct order of theFuehrer.  As Hitler’s chief of staff, General Alfred Jodl, informed Rommel: The Fuehrer was asleep–and, no, he, Jodl, would not wake him. By the time Hitler awoke and issued the order, it was too late.

Nor could he accept responsibility for the policies that were clearly leading Germany to certain defeat.  Hitler blamed his generals, accused them of cowardice, and relieved many of the best ones from command.

Among those sacked was Heinz Guderian, creator of the German panzer corps–and thus responsible for its highly effective “blitzkrieg” campaign against France in 1940.

Heinz Guderian

Another was Erich von Manstein, designer of the strategy that defeated France in six weeks–something Germany couldn’t do during the four years of World War 1.

Erich von Manstein

Finally, on April 29, 1945–with the Russians only blocks from his underground bunker in Berlin–Hitler dictated his “Last Political Testament.”

Once again, he refused to accept responsibility for unleashing a war that would ultimately consume 50 million lives:

“It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939.  It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who either were of Jewish origin or worked for Jewish interests.”

Hitler had launched the war with a lie–that Poland had attacked Germany, rather than vice versa.  And he closed the war–and his life–with a final lie.

All of which brings us to Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of political science.

In his classic book, The Discourses, he wrote at length on the best ways to maintain liberty within a republic.

In Book Three, Chapter 31, Machiavelli declares: “Great Men and Powerful Republics Preserve an Equal Dignity and Courage in Prosperity and Adversity.”

It is a chapter that Adolf Hitler would have done well to read.

“…A truly great man is ever the same under all circumstances.  And if his fortune varies, exalting him at one moment and oppressing him at another, he himself never varies, but always preserves a firm courage, which is so closely interwoven with his character that everyone can readily see that the fickleness of fortune has no power over him.

“The conduct of weak men is very different.  Made vain and intoxicated by good fortune, they attribute their success to merits which they do not possess, and this makes them odious and insupportable to all around them. 

And when they have afterwards to meet a reverse of fortune, they quickly fall into the other extreme, and become abject and vile.  

“Thence it comes that princes of this character think more of flying in adversity than of defending themselves, like men who, having made a bad use of prosperity, are wholly unprepared for any defense against reverses.”

Stay alert to signs of such character flaws among your own business colleagues–and especially your superiors.  They are the warning signs of a future catastrophe.

CREATING FELONS WITH A WORD

In Bureaucracy, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 25, 2015 at 2:54 am

New York State prisons are about to get a lot fuller.

New York State Senator Tony Avella is sponsoring a bill to create a felony charge– “aggravated resisting arrest”–for people who have been convicted of resisting arrest twice in a 10-year period.

Under current law, resisting arrest is a misdemeanor, carrying a maximum penalty of one year in prison.

If the charge became a felony, those convicted could be sentenced from four years of probation to life in prison.

The bill has its origins in a letter the Lieutenants Benevolent Association–a police union–sent to New York Police Department (NYPD) Commissioner Bill Bratton in January requesting a change in the current law.

State Senator Avella’s proposed legislation reads as follows:

“A person is guilty of aggravated resisting arrest when he or she commits the crime of resisting arrest pursuant to Section 205.30 and has previously been convicted of such crimetwo prior times within a ten-year period.

“Aggravated resisting arrest is a class E felony.”

Click here: Bills

And Bratton, in testimony before the New York State Senate in February, supported harsher penalties for those who resist arrest.

“We need to get around this idea that you can resist arrest,” Bratton said to reporters after his appearance. “One of the ways to do that is to give penalties for that.”

This legislation–if enacted–will have both local and national implications.

Police pepper-spraying non-violent protesters

Local–because the NYPD is the largest police department in the country.  Its website states that it now has “approximately 34,500″ uniformed officers.

(To put that number into historical perspective: When Alexander the Great set out in 334 B.C. to conquer the Persian empire, his army numbered 30,000.)

National–because the NYPD is one of the most respected police departments in the country.  And other police departments will almost certainly follow suit in urging their state legislatures to pass similar legislation.

So what’s wrong with that?

“Resisting arrest” is one of those terms that can mean whatever a police officer wants it to mean.

If a prosecutor accuses someone of bank robbery, he must present valid evidence–such as witnesses, camera footage and (probably) portions of stolen money in the arrested person’s possession.

But if a cop says someone “resisted arrest,” the “evidence” often consists of only his claim.

“Resisting arrest” can mean anything–including that the person merely asked, “Why am I being arrested?”

WNYC–New York’s highly respected public radio station–reported in 2014 that 40% of resisting arrest cases are brought by five percent of police officers.

If an officer routinely claims that people are resisting arrest, this might signal his being overly aggressive toward civilians.

He might even use the criminal charge to cover up his use of excessive force.

This is especially relevant in light of a series of recent cases–some caught on camera–of police savagely beating arrestees, or using forbidden chokeholds on them.

Consider how such increased penalties could have affected the life of Tyeesha Mobley.

Mobley, 29, caught her nine-year-old son stealing $10 from her purse. She called the called the NYPD.

Can you please send over an officer to explain to my kids that stealing is wrong? she asked.

The police department obliged, sending over four officers to meet Mobley and her two boys at a nearby gas station.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bet.com/content/dam/betcom/images/2015/03/National/031915-national-Tyeesha-Mobley.jpg.custom1200x675x20.dimg&imgrefurl=http://www.bet.com/news/national/photos/bring-that-week-back/2015/03/bring-that-week-back-parents-says-daughter-not-allowed-at-black-friend-s-sleepover.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Betcom-LatestPhotos+(BET.com+-+Latest+Photos)#!031915-national-Tyeesha-Mobley&docid=JHk4KstsAEHWfM&tbnid=O-hToga7ZXEKgM:&w=1200&h=675&ei=undefined&ved=undefined&iact=c

Tyeesha Mobley

The meeting started off well. “Three officers was joking around with [the nine-year-old who had stolen the $10], telling him, ‘You can’t be stealing; you’ll wind up going in the police car,’” Mobley testified at a court hearing in October, 2014.

But the fourth officer apparently resented the assignment. According to a lawsuit subsequently filed by Mobley, the following happened:

“You black bitches don’t know how to take care of your kids,” said the fourth officer.  “Why are you wasting our time?  Why don’t you take your fucking kid and leave?”

Mobley decided that was a good time to do just that

But before she could do so, the cop told her she was under arrest.

“What for?” she asked. “If you’re going to say another fucking word,” the lawsuit alleges the cop warned her, “I’m going to knock your teeth down your throat.”

He then shoved her up against a car, kicked her legs, and handcuffed her.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/yhst-77502422005591/nypdsticker&imgrefurl=http://newyorkcityheros.com/nyshslgrtees1.html&docid=NkjZ5WArupw0GM&tbnid=gHWJFV5oUGoGYM:&w=250&h=298&ei=TdcRVfKaC-eIsQTpnoGIAQ&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c

Mobley spent a night in jail.  Her two boys were taken away and placed in foster care for four months–with a family that spoke no English.

Finally, a judge threw out the case against her.

Mobley has since filed a lawsuit against New York City, the NYPD and the Administration for Children’s Services.

It doesn’t take a genius to see how Mobley’s life could have been turned into an even greater hell under the proposed change in “resisting arrest” laws.

CALL A COP, GO TO JAIL

In Bureaucracy, Law, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on March 24, 2015 at 3:21 pm

As the stage line goes: It seemed like a good idea at the time.

A mother finds that her nine-year-old son has stolen money from her purse.  So she decides to have someone who commands respect teach him that stealing is wrong.

So she calls the police–and things go horribly wrong.

Here’s what happened.

Tyeesha Mobley, 29, caught her nine-year-old son stealing $10 from her purse.

So she called the called the New York Police Department (NYPD)

Can you please send over an officer to explain to my kids that stealing is wrong? she asked.

The police department agreed, and sent over not one but four officers to meet Mobley and her two boys at a nearby gas station.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bet.com/content/dam/betcom/images/2015/03/National/031915-national-Tyeesha-Mobley.jpg.custom1200x675x20.dimg&imgrefurl=http://www.bet.com/news/national/photos/bring-that-week-back/2015/03/bring-that-week-back-parents-says-daughter-not-allowed-at-black-friend-s-sleepover.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Betcom-LatestPhotos+(BET.com+-+Latest+Photos)#!031915-national-Tyeesha-Mobley&docid=JHk4KstsAEHWfM&tbnid=O-hToga7ZXEKgM:&w=1200&h=675&ei=undefined&ved=undefined&iact=c

Tyeesha Mobley

The meeting started off well.

“Three officers was joking around with [the nine-year-old who had stolen the $10], telling him, ‘You can’t be stealing; you’ll wind up going in the police car,’” Mobley testified at a court hearing in October, 2014.

But the fourth officer apparently resented the assignment.

According to a lawsuit subsequently filed by Mobley, the following happened:

“You black bitches don’t know how to take care of your kids,” said the fourth officer.  “Why are you wasting our time?  Why don’t you take your fucking kid and leave?”

Mobley decided that was a good time to leave. But before she could do so, the cop told her she was under arrest.

“What for?” she asked.

“If you’re going to say another fucking word,” the lawsuit alleges the cop warned her, “I’m going to knock your teeth down your throat.”

He then shoved her up against a car, kicked her legs, and handcuffed her.

Mobley’s two sons–ages four and nine–could only watch in horror as their mother was being manhandled.

“Stop, you’re hurting mommy,” they cried, according to the complaint filed in the lawsuit.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/yhst-77502422005591/nypdsticker&imgrefurl=http://newyorkcityheros.com/nyshslgrtees1.html&docid=NkjZ5WArupw0GM&tbnid=gHWJFV5oUGoGYM:&w=250&h=298&ei=TdcRVfKaC-eIsQTpnoGIAQ&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c

Yet worse was to come.

Mobley spent a night in jail.  Her two boys were taken away and placed in foster care for four months–with a family that spoke no English.

Finally, a judge threw out the case against her.

Mobley has since filed a lawsuit against New York City, the NYPD and the Administration for Children’s Services.

“She was simply trying to make sure her son stayed on the right path,” said her attorney, Philip Sporn.  “This shouldn’t  happen to anyone, let alone to a good mom with her kids.”

The lawsuit highlights a fundamental weakness of the American justice system.

Americans almost universally believe that any wrong can be rectified if enough money is paid out as punishment.

Thus, car makers who knowingly keep dangerous vehicles on the road instead of issuing a recall settle up in civil lawsuits.

As a rule, they refuse to admit wrongdoing–and the amount of money they’re forced to pay out to victims isn’t disclosed.

Nearly always, this means the victim–or his survivors–is forbidden to publicly say why the company paid out a huge settlement, such as: “They admitted they knew the brakes were faulty but they didn’t want to spend the money fixing them.”

And if the victims disclose this admission–or how much money they got from Car Maker X–that money can legally be taken from them.

Never, however, is a CEO criminally prosecuted for ordering his company to conceal wrongdoing or dangerous products.

Thus, corporate predators are allowed to escape the criminality of their actions–and go on to prey on other victims.

The same holds true with lawsuits against the police.

Even if Mobley wins a huge settlement, the officer who victimized her will almost certainly remain on the NYPD.

And he will be able to victimize others who have the bad luck to encounter him.

Handing out big chunks of money is not enough to establish justice for outrageous violations of people’s civil rights.

It’s as if former Reichsmarshall Hermann Goring, charged with war crimes, were allowed to fork over a big sum of money and then comfortably retire to his estate.

Until Americans realize that some crimes demand more than financial payment, this country’s “criminal justice system” will fail to live up to its name.

POLYGRAPH BY COPIER

In History, Law Enforcement, Self-Help on March 20, 2015 at 2:43 pm

Ever heard of “polygraph by copier”? If you haven’t, here’s how it works:

A detective loads three sheets of paper into a Xerox machine.

“Truth” has been typed onto the first sheet.

“Truth” has been typed onto the seond sheet.

“Lie” has been typed onto the third sheet. Then a criminal suspect is led into the room and told to put his hand against the side of the machine. “What is your name?” asks the detective.

The suspect gives it.

The detective hits the copy button, and a page comes out: “Truth.”

“Where do you live?” asks the detective.

The suspect gives an address, the detective again hits the copy button, and a second page appears: “Truth.”

Then comes the bonus question: “Did you or did you not kill Big Jim Tate on the evening of….?”

The suspect answers.

The detective presses the copy button one last time, and the sheet appears: “Lie.”

“Well, well, well, you lying little bastard,” says the detective.

Convinced that the police have found some mysterious way to peer into the darkest recesses of his criminality, the suspect “gives it up” and makes a full confession.

Yes, contrary to what many believe, police can legally use deceit to obtain a confession.

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled, in United States v. Russell: “Nor will the mere fact of deceit defeat a prosecution, for there are circumstances when the use of deceit is the only practicable law enforcement technique available.”

In that case, the Court narrowly upheld a conviction for methamphetamine production even though the defendant had argued entrapment.

So what types of interrogative deceit might a police officer use to develop admissible evidence of a suspect’s guilt?

The general rule is that deception can be used so long as it’s not likely to cause an innocent person to commit a crime or confess to a crime that s/he didn’t commit.

Click here: The Lawful Use of Deception – Article – POLICE Magazine

Consider the following examples:

  • A detective is interviewing a suspect in a rape case.  “Oh, that girl,” he says, thus implying that the victim was a slut and had it coming.  The suspect, thinking he’s dealing with a sympathetic listener, starts bragging about his latest conquest–only to learn, too late, that his listener isn’t so simpatico after all.
  • “We found your prints on the gun”–or on any number of other surfaces.  Actually, there are few good places on a pistol to leave prints.  And those that are left can be smeared.  The same goes for other surfaces.  But if a suspect can be led to believe the cops have his prints, a confession is often forthcoming.
  • A police officer is interrogating a suspect in a murder case.  “He came at you, didn’t he?” asks the cop.  The suspect, who murdered the victim in cold blood, thinks he has an escape route.  “Yeah, he came at me”–this confirming that, yes, he did kill the deceased.
  • “Your partner just gave you up” is a favorite police strategen when there is more than one suspect involved.  If one suspect can be made to “flip”–turn–against the other, the case is essentially wrapped up.
  • Interrogating a bank robbery suspect, a cop might say: “We know you didn’t do the shooting, that you were only the wheelman.”  This implies that the penalty for driving the getaway car is far less than that for killing someone during a robbery.  In fact, criminal law allows every member of the conspiracy to be charged as a principal.
  • “I don’t give a damn what you did,” says the detective.  “Just tell me why you did it.”  For some suspects, this offers a cathartic release, a chance to justify their guilt.
  • The “good cop/bad cop” routine is known to everyone who has ever seen a police drama.  Yet it continues to yield results so often it continues to be routinely used.  “Look, I believe you,” says the “good” cop, “but my partner’s a real asshole.  Just tell me what happened so we can clear this up and you can go.”
  • “So,” says the detective, “why do you think the police believe you did it?”  “I have no idea,” says the suspect, confident that he isn’t giving up anything that might come back to haunt him.  “Well,” says the cop, “I guess you’ll just have to make something up.”  Make something up sounds easy, but is actually a trap.  The suspect may end up giving away details that could incriminate him–or lying so brazenly that his lies can be used against him.

So is there a best way for a suspect to deal with an invitation to waive his Mirandaright to remain silent?

Yes, there is.

It’s to refuse to say anything and to ask for permission to call a lawyer.

That’s the preferred method for Mafia hitmen–and accused police officers. Any cop who finds himself under investigation by his department’s Internal Affairs unit automatically shuts up–and calls his lawyer.

Any other response–no matter how well-intentioned–may well result in a lengthy prison sentence.

HOW TO BE A SMARTER EXECUTIVE

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Self-Help on March 13, 2015 at 12:08 am

“The man who builds a factory,” said President Calvin Coolidge, “builds a temple.  And the man who works there worships there.”

Many American corporate executives still feel about themselves–nd their employees.  But those heady days of knee-jerk worship of CEOs and their oversize salaries and egos are over–at least, temporarily.

Americans have reluctantly learned that the robber barons who rule Wall Street arenot God’s own elect.

Even Ayn Rand disciple Allen Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman and a longtime champion of de-regulation, has admitted he totally underestimated the role greed plays in the making of financial decisions.

It’s thus time for Americans to demand wholesale reforms in the ways corporate executives are allowed to operate. And a good place to start is with the advice of Niccolo Machiavelli.

The Florentine statesman (1469-1527) wrote extensively about how bureaucracies truly work–as opposed to how people believe they do.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Consider the following from his book, The Prince, which offers instruction on how to attain and retain power:

  • IMITATE THOSE WHO HAVE ATTAINED GREATNESS: Not always being able to follow others exactly, nor attain to the excellence of those he imitates, a prudent man should always follow in the paths trodden by great men and imitate those who are most excellent….  If he does not attain to their greatness, at any rate he will get some tinge of it.
  • DON’T RELY ON LOVE:  …I conclude, therefore, with regard to being loved and feared, that men love at their own free will, but fear at the will of the prince, and that a wise prince must rely on what is in his power and not on what is in the power of others, and he must only contrive to avoid incurring hatred….
  • NEED TO BE PRACTICAL:  A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must inevitably come to grief among so many who are not good.  And therefore it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case.
  • CAUTION AND BOLDNESS: A [leader]…must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves.  One must therefore be a fox to avoid traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.  Those who wish to be only lions do not realize this.
  • SANCTIONS VS. FAVORS:  [Leaders] should let the carrying out of unfavorable duties devolve to others, and bestow favors themselves.
  • RISK AS A GIVEN: Let no [leader] believe that [he] can always follow a safe policy, rather let [he] think that all are doubtful.  This is found in the nature of things, that one never tries to avoid one difficulty without running into another, but prudence consists in being able to know the nature of the difficulties, and taking the least harmful as good.
  • A RULER’S SUBORDINATES: The first impression that one gets of a ruler and his brains is from seeing the men that he has about him.  When they are competent and loyal one can always consider him wise, as he has been able to recognize their ability and keep them faithful.
  • But when they are the reverse, one can always form an unfavorable opinion of him, because the first mistake that he makes is in making this choice.
  • EVALUATING COMPETENCE:  There are three different kinds of brains: the one understands things unassisted, the other understands things when shown by others, the third understands neither alone nor with the explanations of others.  The first kind is most excellent; the second is also excellent; but the third is useless.
  • OVERCOMING ONE’S OWN NATURE:  No man can be found so prudent as to be able to adopt himself to [time and circumstances], either because he cannot deviate from that to which his nature disposes him.
  • Or else because having always prospered by walking in one path, he cannot persuade himself that it is well to leave it; and therefore the cautious man, when it is time to act suddenly, does not know how to do so and is consequently ruined.  For if one could change one’s nature with time and circumstances, fortune would never change.
  • ENSURING LOYALTY:  A wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him.
  • CRUELTIES:  Well-committed may be called those…cruelties which are perpetrated once for the need of securing one’s self, and which afterward are not persisted in, but are exchanged for measures as useful to the subjects as possible.  Cruelties ill committed are those which, although at first few, increase rather than diminish with time.
  • FORTUNE: I think it may be true that fortune is the ruler of half our actions, but that she allows the other half or thereabouts to be governed by us.
  • I would compare her to an impetuous river that, when turbulent, inundates the plains, casts down trees and buildings, removes earth from this side and places it on the other; every one flees before it, and everything yields to its fury without being able to oppose it.  Still, when it is quiet, men can make provisions against it by dykes and banks, so that when it follows it will either go into a canal or its rush will not be so wild and dangerous.

“BLACK [THUG] LIVES MATTER!”

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on March 10, 2015 at 2:49 pm

It’s happened again.

Another confrontation between a white police officer and an allegedly unarmed young black man.  Another struggle. Another dead black man, shot by police. And another outcry that police have once again murdered another innocent victim.

Except that the victim’s background proved anything but innocent.

Consider these three incidents:

Incident #1:

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown, a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, is shot and killed during a street confrontation with Darren Wilson, a white police officer.

Almost immediately, Ferguson blacks generally and the Brown family in particular begin referring to Michael Brown as “a child.”

Except that this “child” was 18–legally an adult who could obtain a credit card, enter the armed forces and drive a car.  He also stood 6’3″ and weighed 300 pounds.

Oh, and one more thing: Just before his fatal encounter with Wilson, Brown, Brown was caught on a grocery store video strong-arming a clerk, who had just seen him shoplifting a box of cigars.

Click here: SURVEILLANCE VIDEO: Police say Michael Brown was suspect in Ferguson store robbery – YouTube 

Michael Brown (left) roughing up a store owner

Click here: Lawsuit seeking release of Michael Brown’s juvenile records claims slain teen was a murder suspect – AOL.com

Incident #2:

On March 1, 2015, officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) are summoned to downtown Skid Row to break up a fight between two black men.

A security camera outside a homeless shelter shows a man pushing over a neighbor’s tent and the two men duking it out.

When four officers arrive, the suspect–Charley Saturmin Robinet–turns and ducks back into his own tent.  Then he jumps out, striking and kicking before ending up on the ground.  Officers use Tasers, but these appear to have little effect.

As the officers swarm about him, a bystander’s video captures the voice of a rookie officer shouting, “He has my gun! He has my gun!” That’s when the other three officers open fire.

Blacks in Los Angeles and throughout the nation immediately claimed that Robinet–known as “Africa” on the street–was unarmed when he was shot.

But LAPD Chief Charlie Beck stated that an inspection of the video shows Robinet reaching for the pistol in the rookie officer’s waistband.

The officer’s gun was later found partly cocked and jammed with a bullet in the chamber and another in the ejection port, indicating a struggle for the weapon, said Beck.

Then, on March 3, as a black outcry continued to sound throughout the nation, a news bombshell dropped:

In 2000, Robinet had been convicted of robbing a Wells Fargo branch and pistol-whipping an employee.  The reason for the robbery: To pay for acting classes at the Beverly Hills Playhouse.

While in federal prison in Rochester, Minnesota, Robinet was assigned to the mental health unit, where it was determined he suffered from mental illness requiring treatment in a psychiatric hospital. He served about 13 years in prison before being released in May, 2014.

Under the terms of his release, Robinet was required to report to his probation officer at the start of each month.  He failed to do so in November and December, 2014, and in January, 2015. So a federal arrest warrant was issued on January 9.

U.S. marshals were searching for him at the time of his fatal confrontation with the LAPD.

Click here: Man killed by Los Angeles police was wanted by US marshals – AOL.com

Incident #3:

On March 6, 2015, 19-year-old Anthony “Tony” Robinson, black, was shot and killed by a white police officer in Madison, Wisconsin.

The shooting came after police got a call saying that Robinson was jumping in and out of traffic and had assaulted someone. Robinson fled to an apartment, and the officer–Matt Kenny–heard a disturbance and forced his way inside.

According to police, a struggle ensued and Kenny fired after Robinson attacked him.

Only hours after the shooting, Madison Police Chief Mike Koval–who is white–called Robinson’s death “a tragedy” and prayed with Robinson’s grandmother in her driveway.

And then, on March 7, came the news: In 2014, Robinson had pleaded guilty to armed robbery and recently began serving a three-year probation term for that felony conviction.

According to a criminal complaint, Robinson was one of five men who staged a home-invasion robbery in Madison in April, 2014, searching for money and marijuana. Police captured Robinson as he fled the home, and he admitted that he stole a TV and an Xbox 360 from the apartment.

Tony Robinson

He was sentenced to three years’ probation in December.

Reacting to her son’s death, Robinson’s mother, Andrea Irwin, said:  “My son has never been a violent person. And to die in such a violent, violent way, it baffles me.”

Not every police shooting of a black is a replay of Mississippi Burning, the 1964 case where three civil rights workers were murdered by white racist police.

Some police shootings are fueled by anger or prejudice.  Others happen by accident or negligence. So it’s foolish to automatically assume that every police shooting is totally justified.

But it’s equally foolish to assume that every police shooting is totally unjustified. Especially when, in case after case, the “non-violent” victim turns out to have had a history of violence.

TERROR AND TRUTH(LESSNESS): PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 6, 2015 at 12:09 am

During World War II, British singer Vera Lynn comforted her war-weary fellow citizens with a poignant rendition of “The White Cliffs of Dover.” A portion of its lyrics goes:

There’ll be love and laughter And peace ever after. Tomorrow, when the world is free.

The shepherd will tend his sheep. The valley will bloom again. And Jimmy will go to sleep In his own little room again.

Click here: Vera Lynn: The White Cliffs of Dover – YouTube

The appeal of the song lay in its promise that, once Nazi Germany was defeated, peace and normality would return.

And despite being threatened with invasion in 1940 and devastated by massive bombing raids in 1940-41, citizens of Great Britain could take heart in the following:

Nazi Germany had a capitol–Berlin–and a single, all-powerful leader–Adolf Hitler. Once Berlin was occupied and Hitler dead or captured, the war would be over.

And, for all their ferocity, German soldiers were easy to recognize: They wore gray uniforms, spoke German and waved flags emblazoned with swastikas or imperial eagles.

Wehrmacht soldiers marching through conquered France

Today, Western nations under attack by Islamic “holy warriors” face none of those advantages. Islam has no single capitol city–or leader.

The American occupation of Baghdad in 2003 triggered a nationwide insurgency.  And deposing Saddam Hussein unleashed a religious war between Shia and Sunnis throughout Iraq.

Nor do Islam’s jihadist legions wear uniforms.  Many of them don’t speak Arabic or wear clothing associated with Arabs, such as flowing robes and headdresses.

More ominously, millions of Islam’s potential “warriors” live within the very Western nations they despise.  They can get all the instruction and inspiration they need to wreck havoc simply by going to the Internet.  Or, if they have the money, by traveling overseas to such terrorist-recruiting centers as Syria.

And yet, faced with an unprecedented threat to their security, many Western leaders refuse to publicly acknowledge this fundamental truth:

Even if the West isn’t at war with Islam, Islam is at war with the West. Leaders like President Barack Obama, who insisted, at a White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February: “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

David Cameron

And leaders like British Prime Minister David Cameron, who said on August 29, 2014: “Islam is a religion observed peacefully by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a poisonous ideology observed by a minority.”

It was at this same press conference that Cameron announced that United Kingdom authorities would soon begin revoking the passports of British citizens traveling to Syria.

Arthur M. Cummings, the FBI’s executive assistant director for national security, has no use for such Politically Correct terms as “man-caused disasters” to refer to terrorism.  Nor does he shy away from terms such as “jihadists” or “Islamists.”

“Of course Islamists dominate the terrorism of today,” he says bluntly.

In May, 2014, Steven Emerson, a nationally recognized expert on terrorism, posted an ad in The New York Times, warning about the dangers of PC-imposed censorship:

“Our nation’s security and its cherished value of free speech has been endangered by the bullying campaigns of radical Islamic groups, masquerading as ‘civil rights’ organizations, to remove any reference to the Islamist motivation behind Islamic terrorist attacks.

“These groups have pressured or otherwise colluded with Hollywood, the news media, museums, book publishers, law enforcement and the Obama Administration in censoring the words ‘Islamist’, ‘Islamic terrorism’, ‘radical Islam’ and ‘jihad’ in discussing or referencing the threat and danger of Islamic terrorism.

“This is the new form of the jihadist threat we face. It’s an attack on one of our most sacred freedoms—free speech—and it endangers our very national security. How can we win the war against radical Islam if we can’t even name the enemy?”

He has a point–and a highly legitimate one.

Imagine the United States fighting World War II–and President Franklin Roosevelt banning the use of “fascist” in referring to Nazi Germany or “imperialist” in describing Imperial Japan.

Imagine CNN-like coverage of the Nazi extermination camps, with their piles of rotting corpses and smoking gas ovens, while a commentator reminds us that “Nazism is an ideology of peace.”

Then consider these Islamic terrorist outrages of our own time:

  • The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., which snuffied out the lives of 3,000 Americans.
  • The 2004 bombing of Madrid’s commuter train system.
  • The attack on the London subway in 2005.
  • The killing of 13 U.S. Army personnel at Fort Hood, Texas, by a Muslim army major in 2009.
  • The hacking of a British soldier to death on a London street in 2013.
  • The bombing of the Boston Marathon in 2013.
  • The kidnapping of 300 Nigerian schoolgirls by Boko Haram in 2014.

In every one of these attacks, the perpetrators openly announced that their actions had been motivated by their Islamic beliefs.

In his groundbreaking book, The Clash of Civilizations (1996) Samuel Huntington, the late political scientist at Harvard University, noted: “The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”

All-in-all, the future looks better for would-be Islamic conquerors than for those in the West awaiting the next Islamic atrocity.

TERROR AND TRUTH(LESSNESS): PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 4, 2015 at 3:47 am

The headline on the CNN website said it all–or seemed to: “Religion’s Week From Hell.”

Then came the first paragraph: “Whether you believe that religious violence is fueled by faith or is a symptom of larger factors–political instability, poverty, cultural chaos–one thing seems clear: Last week was hellish for religion.”

The story–published on February 18–then went on to outline a series of atrocities committed in the name of religion:

“Across several continents, including North America, Europe, Central Asia and Africa, scores of religious believers suffered and died in brutal attacks over the past seven days.”

And here was the day-by-day chronicle of slaughter:

Monday:

  • Boko Haram, the Islamic group based in Nigeria, attacked several towns in Cameroon, kidnapping 20 people. They also exploded a car bomb in Niger.  At the time, the death toll was unclear.

Tuesday:

  • Craig Hicks, an athiest who ranted against religion on the Internet, was charged with killing three young Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Wednesday:

  • The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) attacked Kurdish forces in northern Iraq and Iraqi civilians in Baghdad.  At least 31 people were killed in Baghdad by ISIS bombs.

Thursday:

  • Al Qaeda seized a key military base in Baihan, Yemen, killing four Yemeni soldiers.  They then took control of the town’s weaponry.
  • With the United States’ having already closed its embassy in Yemen, Italy, Germany and Saudi Arabia did the same.

Friday:

  • Boko Haram killed 21 people in attacks on Mbuta and Akida villages in Nigeria.
  • The Islamic terror group also killed four civilians and a soldier in neighboring Chad.
  • In Peshawar, Pakistan, the Taliban attacked a Shia mosque, killing 19 and wounding dozens.

Saturday: 

  • In Copenhagen, Denmark, an Islamic gunman fired at attendees of a free-speech forum, where a Swedish cartoonist was scheduled to speak.  His alleged crime: Depicting the Prophet Mohammed.  Casualties: Three officers wounded and one 55-year-old man killed.
  • Hours later, the same terrorist visited a Copenhagen synagogue.  Opening fire, he wounded two officers and killing a private security guard.

Sunday:

  • ISIS released a video showing its members beheading more than a dozen members of Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority on a Libyan beach.

* * * * *

So much for “religion’s week from hell.”

Except that the title of this story was completely misleading. It would have been more accurately entitled: “Islam’s Week of Hell.”

ISIS member beheading a helpless captive

Of the 13 atrocities detailed above, all but one showcased Islamics as the murderers.

The single exception was that of Craig Hicks, an athiest who was charged with shooting three Muslim college students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

It was this case–and not any of the others–that brought Muslims to demand “justice.” Muslims immediately urged the Obama administration to investigate the murders as a hate crime.

Suzanne Barakat, the sister of one of the victims, said the students had been murdered because they were Muslims. She said that the killings should be considered an act of terrorism: “It’s time people call it what it is.”

But getting Islamics to label other Islamics as terrorists is an entirely different matter.

According to author Ronald Kessler, this has caused serious problems for the FBI. In his 2011 book, The Secrets of the FBI, Kessler notes the refusal of the Islamic community to identify known or potential terrorists within its ranks.

Says Arthur M. Cummings, the Bureau’s executive assistant director for national security: “I had this discussion with the director of a very prominent Muslim organization here in [Washington] D.C. And he said, ‘Why are you guys always looking at the Muslim community?'”

“I can name the homegrown cells, all of whom are Muslim, all of whom were seeking to kill Americans,” replied Cummings. “It’s not the Irish, it’s not the French, it’s not the Catholics, it’s not the Protestants.  It’s the Muslims.”

Occasionally, Muslims will condemn Al Qaeda.  But “rarely do we have them coming to us and saying, ‘There are three guys in the community that we’re very concerned about.'” said Cummings.

“They don’t want anyone to know they have extremists in their community.  Well, beautiful.  Except do you read the newspapers?  Everybody already knows it. The horse has left the barn.

“So there’s a lot of talk about engagement. But, realistically, we’ve got a long, long way to go.”

At one community meeting, an Islamic leader suggested to Cummings that then-FBI director Robert Meuller III should pose for a picture with his group’s members. The reason: To show that Islamics are partners in the “war on terror.”

“When you bring to my attention real extremists who are here to plan and do something, who are here supporting terrorism,” said Cummings, “then I promise you, I will have the director stand up on the stage with you.”

“That could never happen,” replied the Islamic leader.  “We would lose our constituency.  We could never admit to bringing someone to the FBI.”

REPUBLICANS: SLANDERING THE HEROES OF 9/11

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics on February 27, 2015 at 1:53 am

With their newfound majorities in both houses of Congress, Republicans are holding the budget of the Department of Homeland Security–and the safety of their fellow Americans–hostage.

Amidst all this turmoil, it’s easy to forget another Republican outrage that happened five years ago: The slander they cast on the patriotism of the tens of thousands of police, firefighters, construction workers and others who risked their lives to save their fellow Americans on 9/11.

The World Trade Center on September 11, 2001

This “gift” was sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and eagerly supported by other Republicans in the House and Senate.

Rep. Cliff Stearns

The responders were informed that their names must be run through the FBI’s database of suspected terrorists. Otherwise, they would be denied treatment for their numerous, worsening ailments.

In 2010–nine years after the worst terrorist attack in American history–Congress passed the Democratically-sponsored James Zadroga 9/11 Health And Compensation Act.

The law was named for a New York City detective who died of a respiratory disease in 2006 after his contact with toxic chemicals at Ground Zero.

The law authorized $1.8 billion to be spent over five years to treat injuries of police, firefighters, emergency workers, construction and cleanup crews caused by exposure to toxic dust and debris at the site.

From the outset, Republicans bitterly opposed the legislation.  They argued that providing healthcare for ailing September 11 heroes would bankrupt the nation.

Of course, they hadn’t voiced such concerns when President George W. Bush needlessly launched the nation into a $1 trillion war against Iraq in 2003.

For Republicans, the heroes of 9/11 had become “welfare-seeking bums.”  If they couldn’t afford their own medical care, so what?

Republicans slandered the proposal as a new “entitlement program,” like Medicare.  They demanded that the responders return to Congress every year to make their case, claiming this would prevent fraud and waste.

“If this issue is so credible based on the results of September 11, we shouldn’t be afraid of going through the (budget) authorization process and fight for the spending bill,” said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.).

Republicans forced Democrats to accept an amendment that deliberately cast a slur on the men and women who answered their country’s call in its supreme moment of agony. Only then was the legislation passed.

The amendment read: “No individual who is on the terrorist watch list maintained by the Department of Homeland Security shall qualify as a screening-eligible WTC survivor or a certified-eligible WTC survivor.

“Before determining any individual to be a screening-eligible WTC survivor…or certifying any individual as a certified eligible survivor….the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall determine whether the individual is on such list.”

The amendment provoked outrage among non-politicians, Democrats and even some Republicans.  Among these:

  • Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)  whose district encompassed Ground Zero, said it was “absurd” to consider that any of the 9/11 heroes would be terrorists.  He added that the screenings were a “waste of money.”
  • Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called the exercise “shameful” and “a waste of time,” adding: “It put a cloud over extraordinarily good people for no reason.”
  • “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart noted that the federal government didn’t run background checks on any other group of people receiving financial benefits. These included Social Security recipients, Medicare patients and even Wall Street bankers bailed out during the recession.

Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, advised doctors and hospital administrators to begin letting patients know before the new program took effect in July, 2011.

Specifically, patients seeking help under 9/11 treatment and monitoring programs were told that their

  • names
  • birthplaces
  • addresses
  • government ID numbers
  • and other personal data

would be provided to the FBI to prove they were not terrorists.

Firefighters rescuing victims at the World Trade Center

Howard’s instructions to medical providers included a sample letter to responders designed to minimize alarm:

“Although neither we nor [the Centers for Disease Control]/NIOSH anticipate the name of any individual in the current Programs will be on the list, CDC/NIOSH is expressly required by law to implement this particular requirement of the Act.

“Thank you for your understanding. We look forward to working with you and ensuring that you continue to receive uninterrupted services under the new WTC Health Program,” it concluded.

By August, 2011, the FBI had screened some 60,000 emergency responders to the attacks on the World Trade Center and had not uncovered any suspected terrorists. To date, no matchups have occurred between known terrorists and those seeking treatment.

Glen Kline, a former NYPD emergency services officer, best summed up the disgrace of these background checks: “This is absurd. It’s silly. It’s stupid. It’s asinine.  I mean, who are we even talking about–the undocumented workers who cleaned the office buildings?

“We know who all the cops, firefighters and construction workers were. They’re all documented.  Is the idea that a terrorist stayed to help clean up? And then stayed all these years to try and get benefits?”

Thus, self-righteous Right-wing legislators–who never lifted a beam from a trapped 9/11 survivor or inhaled toxic fumes that spewed from the crater that was once the World Trade Center–now stood in judgment over those who did.

ILLEGAL ALIENS = UNRELIABLE ALLIES

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on February 26, 2015 at 3:07 pm

Some Republicans–like Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah–want their new majorities in the House and Senate to make “producing legislation” a top priority.

But others will soon make the impeachment of President Barack Obama their top priority.

Here’s how it will happen.

“We now have the votes and we have the ability to call the agenda, so stop name-calling and let’s actually produce some legislation that helps jobs and the economy and moves our country forward,” Chaffetz said in an interview after Republicans captured the U.S. Senate on November 4, 2014.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.quotessays.com/images/jason-chaffetz-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.quotessays.com/bio/jason-chaffetz.html&docid=3MJFI0cdmEdHuM&tbnid=eN2CsKEX89mpoM:&w=570&h=757&ei=UM5bVLnzIdLdoASoloLgCQ&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c

Rep. Jason Chaffetz

“I think the country has figured that out, and they’ve given us the mandate to do it, and we better produce, or they’ll kick us out too.”

Obama has vowed to act unilaterally before year’s end to reduce the number of deportations and grant work permits to millions of illegal aliens living in the United States.

After promising to take executive action on immigration by the end of the summer of 2014, Obama delayed his plans until after the elections.  Democrats–especially Senators from conservative states–had warned him that such administrative moves could threaten their reelection.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://grumpyelder.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/illegal-immigrants.jpg&imgrefurl=http://grumpyelder.com/2012/01/the-we-cant-deport-all-12-million-illegal-aliens-scam/&docid=N4ERI9jdeY2G8M&tbnid=P-CXa1aFoyJcLM:&w=500&h=329&ei=BM9bVJrKD4jpoATqmIDwDA&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c

Illegal aliens crossing American borders by the millions

But on November 4, most of those Democrats lost anyway, leaving immigration advocates–and their millions of illegal alien constituents–feeling that the delay was needless.

“What I’m not going to do is just wait,” the president said as immigration legislation that the Senate passed in June 2013 remained stalled in the House.

Kentucky’s U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell–who became Senate Majority Leader in January–warned that this would be an in-your-face affront to the new majority GOP:

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/14762/large/a302bc9bea18eca2b87cd656e05105cb.jpg?1357627906&imgrefurl=http://kentuckysportsradio.com/main/mitch-mcconnell-is-about-to-come-on-ksr/&docid=UuX87ufrXGUUhM&tbnid=mIFfN17UeL3g3M:&w=512&h=393&ei=yNBbVLzJJsu5ogSEroDQCg&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c

Mitch McConnell

“I think the president choosing to do a lot of things unilaterally on immigration would be a big mistake,” McConnell said. “It’s an issue that most of my members want to address legislatively and it’s like waving a red flag in front of a bull to say, ‘If you guys don’t do what I want, I’m going to do it on my own.’ …

“I hope he won’t do that because I do think it poisons the well for the opportunity to address a very important domestic issue.”

To which Obama responded: “I have no doubt that there will be some Republicans who are angered or frustrated by any executive action that I may take.

“Those are folks, I just have to say, who are also deeply opposed to immigration reform in any form and blocked the House from being able to pass a bipartisan bill.”

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/abc_obama_specreport_121114_wg.jpg&imgrefurl=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/transcript-obama-press-conference/story?id=17719993&docid=aHyTmgZZkmFu3M&tbnid=d6eKt5qgtY_TPM:&w=640&h=360&ei=ANJbVLDlGIG2oQTWpoGABQ&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c

Barack Obama

Republicans could use spending bills to restrict or stop such executive action, by cutting appropriations to those agencies that would be tasked with carrying out Obama’s directives on immigration.

Several Republicans hold the deep-seated view that Obama already has been abusing his constitutional authority.

“Abuse of power” is an impeachable offense under the United States Constitution.  So making this assertion would provide Republicans with the weapon they’ve long sought to drive Obama from the White House.

Republicans, in fact, have a tainted history of using impeachment to remove a President who dared to thwart their agenda.

After the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, in 1865, Republican President Andrew Johnson tried to carry out Lincoln’s humane policies to reunify the nation after the Civil War.

He issued a series of proclamations directing the former Confederate states to hold conventions and elections to re-form their civil governments. In response, Southern states returned many of their old leaders, and passed Black Codes to deprive freed slaves of many civil liberties.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.usnews.com/cmsmedia/48/6360399039911f92c124ef13176dcc/10467FS_DA_090409_worst-johnson.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2007/02/16/worst-presidents-andrew-johnson&docid=SpfOJ2azMoXRhM&tbnid=Zbb7WgUNRBLe8M:&w=300&h=300&ei=XdJbVJDOIoH9oATYjYL4DA&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c

Andrew Johnson

Congress refused to seat legislators from those states and advanced legislation to overrule the Southern actions.  Johnson vetoed their bills, and Congress overrode him, setting a pattern until he left the White House in 1869.

As the conflict grew between the executive and legislative branches of government, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, restricting Johnson in firing Cabinet officials.  Johnson then tried to fire Secretary of War Edwin Stanton–with whom he had an antagonistic relationship.

An enraged Congress impeached Johnson in the House of Representatives.  He avoided conviction and removal from office in the Senate–by one vote.

If President Obama tries to end-run Congress on immigration policy, history will likely repeat itself with another round of impeachment hearings.

It was Mitch McConnell who infamously vowed–immediately after Obama’s election in 2008–to make him “a one-term President.”

Moreover, there is actually no reason for Obama to risk his Presidency by granting the privileges of American citizenship to millions of illegal aliens.

Democrats–and especially Obama–had counted on millions of illegal aliens to retain Democratic control of the Senate.  But those masses of Hispanic voters never showed up at the polls, thus giving Republicans control of both houses of Congress.

If Obama practiced ruthless “Chicago politics” as charged by his enemies, his response would be: “You [illegal aliens] didn’t live up to your end.  Therefore, I have no further responsibility to you.”

Unfortunately for the President, he seems unable to break with his past of backing unpopular causes for little in return.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,002 other followers

%d bloggers like this: