Wednesday, April 30, 2014

The incomplete anatomy of a police shooting. Samantha Ramsey did not have to be killed for trying to drive away.

This commentary is as much about the way our news media shirks its responsibilities and fails to ask serious questions affecting the public interest and safety and instead, takes things at face value when the police investigate their own people. This commentary is equally critical about law enforcement's use of excessive and deadly force and then tries to justify it. As in many cases, the evidence is incomplete and the citizen eye-witnesses, who are usually ignored, have a different account of the events than the police officials. And it is well known that virtually every police department finds justifiable excuses for bad cop conduct. And to make matters worse, Grand Juries fail to indict and trial juries almost always side with the cops. I have a great deal of respect for our law enforcement in Northern Kentucky. They are polite and courteous. But I am growing tired of hearing that so and so officer "followed procedures" or "felt threatened" when a cop shoots an unarmed civilian. But I am also growing tired of journalists taking their notes from police handouts and failing to view what facts are known and who seem reluctant to ask pointed questions. Case in point, a local 19-year old girl named Samantha Ramsey was shot to death by a Boone County Deputy Sheriff after leaving a field party shortly after 2 AM on April 26th in Hebron, Kentucky.

According to the newspaper and TV stories that reported the incident, and according to Tom Scheban, a spokesman for the Sheriff's Department, Samatha Ramsey of Covington, KY failed an order to stop given by Deputy Tyler Brockman and instead, accelerated her 2001 Subaru and struck him with her car, knocked him up onto the hood of the car where the deputy then fired four shots through the windshield and killed Samantha Ramsey, the driver of the car. There were three other passengers in the car with Samantha Ramsey and one of them, 20-year old Chelsey Pendleton, of Ludlow, KY told a reporter from the Kentucky Enquirer that it did not happen that way. She said the deputy was on the side of the car and jumped up onto the hood before firing his weapon. Pendleton, who was a passenger in the back seat, said one of the bullets fired by the deputy almost struck her and imbedded itself in the back of her seat.

TV station WLWT posted the complete 46 minutes dashcam video on their YouTube web site channel. You can watch it here:
The last frame of the video that shows Deputy Tyler Brockman just before the shooting is time-stamped at 02:13:07. In this frame Deputy Brockman is standing several feet away from the driver's door of the 2001 Subaru with the driver Samatha Ramsey staring up at him through the side window. At that point the car was not moving. Deputy Brockman is also several feet back from the front of the Subaru and it appears to substantiate what the rear seat passenger said.
Following the shooting, which happened out of camera range, the next frame from the dash cam video in which Deputy Tyler Brockman appears is at 02:15:19, two minutes and twelve seconds later. He is seen walking into view pointing his weapon at various people who had escaped from the car. It was not stated by the police spokesman or inquired by the media what actions Deputy Brockman took in the immediate seconds after he fired into the car. If he checked on the condition of the driver or passengers it is unknown. It was stated by the police that Deputy Brockman radioed for assistance saying he was struck by a car and shots were fired. None of the TV stations or newspaper asked about this. The police said the car slowed then rolled backward into a ditch and the passengers got out on their own and made it across the road. They also mentioned the audio was not working on the dashcam.
But more interesting is that from the frame time-stamped 02:15:19 until the frame time stamped 02:19:14 when then second Sheriff's Deputy arrives on the scene, Deputy Tyler Brockman is seen walking around pointing his pistol at everyone, holstering his pistol, drawing his weapon again and still walking around but with not the slightest indication of a limp or any injury that would suggest he had been struck by an accelerating car with enough force to propel him over the hood as he alleged. 
And if, as Deputy Brockman said, the Subaru was driving away from him, how did he get from his position by the side door to in front of the car where he says he was hit and propelled over the hood?
It is vitally important, in the name of public safety, for the news media to hold law enforcement accountable for their actions and to begin independently reviewing the facts and asking pointed questions and not taking the word of police spokesmen in cases of deadly excessive force. It is equally important for police shootings to be investigated by independent agencies not related to law enforcement. I would like to read about the medical treatment Deputy Brockman received that described his alleged injuries and whether or not they were consistent with being struck by a car or falling off of one. FOX19 TV reported: "Scheben said Ramsey hit the brakes, Brockman fell off the car and Ramsey backs into a ditch.  She later died at St. Elizabeth in Florence. Brockman was treated for a leg injury at another hospital."
The web site for radio station WVXU posted the following police report on the incident:
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 at approximately 2:10 a.m. a Boone County Sheriff’s deputy shot and killed the driver of a car from the hood of that car after the driver hit him and continued to accelerate.
Deputy Tyler Brockman, 28 of Boone County, Kentucky had stopped in the 6,600 block of KY-8 (River Road) to investigate a report of a field party.  Brockman was out of his cruiser and ordered the driver of a car that was leaving the party and just starting out on River Road to stop.  Instead, the driver accelerated hitting Brockman and causing him to land on the hood of the car.  Brockman fired four (4) rounds through the windshield.  The driver stopped and then backed up a short distance coming to rest in a ditch on the side of the road.
The driver, Samantha Ramsey, 19 of Covington, Kentucky was transported to Saint Elizabeth Hospital in Florence, Kentucky where she was pronounced.  Brockman was taken to Saint Elizabeth Hospital in Edgewood, Kentucky where he was treated for a leg injury and released.  Samantha Ramsey has no past record with the Boone County Sheriff’s Office.  Deputy Brockman, one of the department’s canine deputies, has served since June of 2010.
Sheriff Michael A. Helmig ordered a full investigation into the incident and placed Deputy Brockman on administrative leave as policy dictates.
The story is receiving worldwide coverage. The Daily Mail newspaper web site in Great Britain has extensive coverage with many photos no other paper has published.
My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.
Update November 6, 2014
It was reported tonight that a Boone County Grand Jury, after hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, refused to indict Boone County Sheriff's Deputy Tyler Brockman in the shooting death of 19-year old Samantha Ramsey on April 26th this year.
Attorney Al Gerhardstein said, "When this is all over and you look at the quality of this investigation it better be impeccable, because the stakes are high and it's a tragic loss and law enforcement's gotta do it right." Gerhardstein says in a case like this where you have a Deputy shooting and killing someone, the investigation must have integrity and be correct, no matter what it looks like. "Look at the officers' conduct and say, alright. Did you do it the way you were trained? Did you follow the rules of the road? Did you create the danger that you then experienced? And if that's the case then the officer sometimes is in real trouble. I don't know if that's what happened here."

Read More at:

Update November 7, 2014
Cincinnati TV station WCPO has posted additional information on this shooting on their web site. Evidence in Brockman/Ramsey case released to public. The story broadcast on the stations 6 o'clock news contained photos of Deputy Brockman's injured foot.

The story as reported yesterday and today seems to differ from the original police version from last April. In the original police report it says "Instead, the driver accelerated hitting Brockman and causing him to land on the hood of the car." Now it says that Samantha Ramsey's car rolled over Deputy Brockman's foot. Quoting from Deputy Brockman's statement on the WKRC Local12 web site: 
Brockman said one car did stop for him, but another car didn't, it was the vehicle that Samantha ramsey was driving

"I think she's going to stop, like the first car,” said Brockman. “I shine my light… when she looked at me her eyes were glassy, watery, she looked back she starts to slow down, I’m trying to run up to the car put the window down... I’m telling her… I remember she looks at me, looks forward, takes off, and goes off camera… I was at the front of the car… I didn't want to get pinned. I jumped, landed right on the hood"
One minute Deputy Brockman is trying to get the driver's window down and then next he is in front of her car all while it is still moving. The obvious question is how does one get their foot run over if they are in front of a vehicle. Granted the toxicology report said that Samantha Ramsey had marijuana in her system and had a blood/alcohol level of .012, making her legally drunk and impaired. Shooting someone under those circumstances is not justified.
I suggest that anyone interested in this watch the dash cam video. Pay attention to the digital time stamp and in particular note that at 02:13:04 the front bumper of the Ramsey car is just at the white line on the edge of the road and at time stamp 02:13:07 the rear bumper has just crossed the same white line on the edge of the road. Given the length of the car at 15' 4" and the fact that a speed of 1 mile per hour is equal to 1.47 feet per second you can calculate that in the 3 seconds it took the Subaru to cross the white line when Deputy Brockman approached on the driver's side, the car was slowing to stop. The Suburu may have accelerated after it passed beyond the view of the dashcam video after Deputy Brockman approached it but he did not get in front of it. Several witnesses recalled that he leaped onto the hood and began shooting directly against the windshield. Deputy Brockman's foot may also have been run over after he leaped off the car but this was not reported.
Days after the shooting WKRC reporter Brad Underwood interviewed Ohio Attorney Al Gerhardstein. Attorney Gerhardstein said, 
"When this is all over and you look at the quality of this investigation it better be impeccable, because the stakes are high and it's a tragic loss and law enforcement's gotta do it right."

Gerhardstein says in a case like this where you have a Deputy shooting and killing someone, the investigation must have integrity and be correct, no matter what it looks like.

"Look at the officers' conduct and say, alright. Did you do it the way you were trained? Did you follow the rules of the road? Did you create the danger that you then experienced? And if that's the case then the officer sometimes is in real trouble. I don't know if that's what happened here."
From the evidence and testimony reported, it appears that Deputy Brockman may well have create the danger that he experienced.
TV station WLWT has additional details.


Tuesday, April 29, 2014

From Kentucky Senator Rand Paul: Obama's gun control crown jewel

Dear fellow Patriot,

Anti-gun statists around the globe believe they have it made.

The United Nations is done with its dirty work finalizing the details of their so-called "Small Arms Treaty."

With the full backing of the Obama administration for this outrageous anti-gun scheme from day one, time is running out until an all-out Senate ratification showdown on the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty."

If you and I are going to beat this Treaty, we simply must fight back NOW before it's too late.

I'm doing everything I can to help expose the TRUTH about this radical scheme.

But today I'm asking you to join me by taking a public stand against the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey right away.

With the national media still pushing anti-gun propaganda after the horrific tragedy in Connecticut, President Obama and his anti-Second Amendment pals believe the timing has never been better to ram through the U.N.'s global gun control crown jewel.

Reading through the details of the Treaty, it's hard to see how our Second Amendment could survive such an assault.

In fact, Article V of the Treaty mandates countries establish a "National Control List" -- or NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION database!

You and I both know gun registration is just the first step toward outright CONFISCATION.

But the truth is, the U.N. is already plotting the next step -- developing new "International Small Arms Control Standards" (ISACS).  Their goal is to impose these radical anti-gun initiatives on every nation who signs the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty."

Introductory language already includes:
***  Mandated national "screening" for all persons seeking to own guns, giving bureaucrats the final say on whether or not you're "competent" enough to own a gun;
***  Licenses for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on certain types of firearms.  This could include anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns to handguns!
***  Restrictions on how many guns and ammo any properly-licensed individual may legally own;
***  Bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds;
***  Bans on owning a firearm for self-defense -- unless a citizen can somehow demonstrate need and get federal government approval.
That's why your IMMEDIATE action is so important.

To those who think government holds all the answers, the United States isn't a "shining city on a hill" -- it's an affront to their grand "utopian" designs for all of us.

And as long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by bureaucrats, those who want big government on a global scale will be out of luck.

That's why I was so excited to see the National Association for Gun Rights leading the fight to stop the U.N.'s so-called "Small Arms Treaty!"

Their efforts over the past few months have stymied President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid every time they've sought to ram gun control through the Senate.

In fact, without NAGR's bare-knuckled, no-compromise tactics, I believe President Obama would have already succeeded in passing any number of anti-Second Amendment schemes.

But the truth is, NAGR depends on the action and support of good folks like you for their effectiveness.

So will you join them by going on record AGAINST global gun control and sign the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey today?

Thanks to the help of good folks like you, the National Association for Gun Rights has taken the lead role in Washington, D.C. beating back gun control schemes.

But the stakes couldn't be higher with the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty."  So there's no time to waste.

After all, the last thing President Obama wants is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical agenda.

The gun control crowd has made that mistake before, and we've made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" into law since the mid-1990s.

Already, parts of the U.N.'s radical agenda are slipping through covertly. In fact, Obama's State Department even bragged that Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious are implementations of the U.N. anti-Second Amendment agenda!

Then you and I saw President Obama issue a flurry of anti-gun executive orders in the wake of the Connecticut tragedy targeting law-abiding gun owners.

Once President Obama decides the time is ripe to submit the Treaty, this fight is going to move FAST.

So if you and I are going to defeat this U.N. Treaty, we have to turn the heat up on Congress right now before it's too late!
1.  Do you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment are the supreme law of the land?
2.  Do you believe any attempt by the United Nations to subvert or supersede your Constitutional rights must be opposed?
If you said "Yes!" to these questions, please sign the survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.

With your help, the National Association for Gun Rights will continue to turn up the heat on targeted Senators who are working to implement the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty."

Direct mail.  Phones.  E-mail.  Blogs.  Guest editorials.  Press conferences.  Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits.  The whole nine yards.

Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.

But that's not easy, and we may not have much time.

So along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second Amendment rights.

For Freedom,

Rand Paul
United States Senator
P.S.   You and I could be facing a Senate ratification fight over the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" in a matter of weeks.

If we're going to defeat the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" gun owners have to turn up the heat now before it's too late!

Please return your Firearms Sovereignty Survey and put yourself squarely on the record AGAINST the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty."

And if you can, please make a generous contribution to the National Association for Gun Rights of $250, $150, $100 or even just $35 right away!

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

The Hypocrites Hall of Fame is filled with Democrats

Add one more name to the Hypocrites Hall of Fame. Billionaire Donald Sterling who owns the L.A. Clippers basketball team. Donald Sterling, according to a story in National Review, is a Democrat with a long history of bigoted behavior. Sterling made the news recently when a racist filled rant of his was leaked to the press. That didn't stop the leftist media from trying to pin the label on a Republican from Texas. The liberals attempted to blame the racist remarks to a different person with the same name who was a Republican without bothering to check the facts.

As an interesting side note, the National Review points out that Democrat Donald Sterling was scheduled to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the NAACP, of all people. Just wondering how that will turn out.

Liberals are so used to covering up for Democrats that they will habitually try to blame a Republican or a Tea Party member or an NRA member for some crime before they check the facts and find they're wrong. Then they suddenly get all quiet on it and never admit the mistake. When James Holmes opened fire in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado killing 12 people and wounding 58 more, the news media picked a different person with the same name who happened to be a member of the Tea Party and said he did it. And recently in Nevada, when embattled cattle rancher Cliven Bundy gave a lengthy statement to the New York Times on how he felt about Mexicans and Black people, the NY Times edited his remarks and printed an excerpt that created the impression Bundy was a racist. The full version of the remarks is available on YouTube but made a transcript that clearly shows Cliven Bundy was anything but a racist. Here is the complete transscript.
Bundy’s full comments are reprinted below, with the parts not printed by the New York Times and other media outlets highlighted in bold.
…” and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.
We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

Let me tell.. talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the Negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro.

When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas; and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids…. and there was always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for the kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for the young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy – so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

You know they didn’t get more freedom, uh they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness -you could see it in their faces- they were not happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them.

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people.
And we need to have those people join us and be with us…. not, not come to our party.
The parts of Cliven Bundy's remarks that The New York Times left out changes the entire meaning of this man's words. Of course, all the other hypocrite liberal news media copied what the Times said. But some prominent Black people agree that Cliven Bundy is no racist. Blogger and musician Lloyd Marcus from Deltona, Florida who is known for his Pop, Adult Contemporary and Smooth Jazz writes on his web site:
  Lloyd Marcus

Deltona, FL
Pop / Adult Contemporary / Smooth Jazz

Play Songs »   Share Songs »   Visit Profile »

This Black Does Not Think Bundy is Racist
Pick a card, any card. Racist. Sexist. Homophobic. We all knew it was only a matter of time before Democrats/Liberals played one or more of their Big Three Cards to silence, intimidate and crush opposition to their latest power grab/tyrannical attack on our freedom.

With a majority of Americans taking rancher Cliven Bundy's side against Obama's BLM thugs, Democrat Harry Reid concluded that it was time to play their old faithful, tried and true race card. As Gomer Pyle use to say, “Surprise. Surprise.” We knew it was coming.

This is how the Left rolls. When America rallied around Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson after being targeted for destruction by the Left, the Left played a twofer on Robertson; accusing him of being homophobic and a racist.

Thank God it did not work. Coming to Robertson's defense, conservatives played their ultimate trump card which overruled all the Left's lies, distortions and evil intent. Our ultimate weapon is the Truth & Righteousness Card. I believe boldly and confidently standing up for truth and righteousness always defeats evil. And make no mistake about it, the Democrat, liberal, progressive and socialist agenda is evil.

The Left's vision for America is counter to the Will of God and the human spirit. Their anti-God agenda places man on the throne as the ultimate power, able to fix everything – the environment, income inequality, equal outcomes and everything under the sun via legislation. The Bible says, “The fool says in his heart that there is no God.”

Not to wander too far off topic, back to the Left's nonsensical allegation that Bundy is a racist.

Any decent fair-minded human being would understand that Bundy was condemning the slavery of government dependency in his comments regarding Negros. The elderly gentleman is a rancher who is not media savvy, nor is he schooled in the nuances of political correctness.

The Left are not decent human beings. Their bully minions went on high alert viciously in pursuit of a “gotcha” comment to squelch Bundy's proven leadership and ability to inspire millions to push back against the Obama regime.

Prominent conservatives running for the tall grass to get away from or running to microphones to denounce Bundy is testimony to their fear of the Left's high tech lynching machine. It truly sickens me.

I hate allowing jive turkey Leftist bullies to push us around. Rather than conservatives fighting back, far too many cower in fear and allow the Left to proclaim what is considered racist. It reminds me of the school yard when I was a kid. The only way to defeat bullies or at least gain their respect was to punch them in the face.

Before a Leftist's hack accuses me of advocating violence, I am talking about “politically” delivering a hard left hook to the Left's jaw by standing up for Bundy.

Mr. Bundy spoke the truth about cradle-to-grave government dependency wrecking havoc in the black community. We all know this. But any white person who dares to acknowledge the huge elephant in the black community's living room is vilified and branded a racist; Bill O'Reilly, Congressman Paul Ryan and now Cliven Bundy. Meanwhile, black families continue to suffer and vote monolithic for Democrats who vow to fix their problems, but never do.

Black relatives of mine (several died young) lived wasted lives because they were addicted to government dependency. They were Democrat party slaves, enslaved with chains far more powerful than steel; mental and emotional slavery. My relatives were robbed of the self-esteem, pride and joy of individual achievement and earning ones way.

Democrats and liberal media I trump your race card against Bundy with my Truth and Righteousness card. You lose! Go peddle your despicable crap elsewhere.

I am a black conservative whose admiration and respect for Cliven Bundy remains unwavering. Mr. Bundy, myself along with millions of good decent Americans have your back. Hang in there my patriot brother. God bless.
Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
Chairman: Conservative Campaign Committee PAC

Lloyd Marcus also happens to be the Chairman of the Conservative Campaign Committee.
A long time ago a Catholic priest in my church once told me that the Devil’s favorite and most useful tool was a worn, old wedge, that was used to open rifts between men of good faith. I’ll bet that the leftist news media has a constant ongoing search for those old tools so that they can break apart our patriotic solidarity. It may be one thing for a highly educated person like Todd Aiken to put his foot in his mouth when he tries to give a quasi-religious explanation for his no-exceptions policy on abortion, saying “legitimate rape” rarely leads to pregnancy. It is entirely something else for a less articulate country farmer to be placed in an unfamiliar spotlight and say something stupid. Something easily taken out of context. But the essence of what Bundy said is still undeniable. A sizable segment of our urban Black population have sold themselves body and soul to the Democratic Party in exchange for welfare, free healthcare, cell phones, food stamps and other freebees. The resulting broken families have greatly contributed to violent crime. It is very sad to see how quickly Bundy’s supporters abandoned him.
My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.

Friday, April 25, 2014

From: Daily Sanity, Barack Obama Hires a Criminal Defense Attorney!

DailySanity Newsletter from

Barack Obama Hires a Criminal Defense Attorney!

Dear Conservative,
Barack Obama is a criminal. There… I said it.
Time and time again, this Imperial President has violated our laws, infringed on our Constitutional rights, and pushed the limits of his Executive Power.
His crimes are well documented. His administration has gone after your right to free speech, targeted the free exercise of religion and it has done everything its power to disarm you and violate your Second Amendment rights. He has used every department under him to target his opposition, pushing the IRS to silence opposition non-profit groups, the FBI use wiretaps to spy on Fox News, the NSA to collect the phone records of millions of Americans without a warrant, and he has used the CIA to target American citizens abroad with drone strikes without ever so much as filing a charge in court. He has instructed his DOJ to use discretion and avoid deporting criminals who are in this country illegally and when Americans were under fire in Benghazi, the Commander and Chief was caught sleeping on his way to a fundraiser.
He has abused his power by rewriting laws when he has no authority to do so and disregarding court orders when they don’t go his way. And to top it all off, he lied to the American people literally hundreds of times when he falsely and deliberately promised that under the so-called “Affordable” Care Act, Americans would be able to keep their insurance and doctors.
This list of Presidential crimes is not exhaustive, but it is clear that not only has Barrack Obama broken the law, but he is also attempting to cover it up! Obama knows his days are numbered! He knows that with all the congressional hearings looking into his crimes, it is only a matter of time before Congress gets up the courage to impeach him!
Tell Congress that the evidence is overwhelming and Barack Obama must be impeached!
You can tell that the writing is on the wall just by looking at who Obama has appointed as his new White House Chief Counsel. Obama has given the nod to W. Neil Eggleston. Now at first glance, this doesn’t mean anything… which explains why most media outlets haven’t caught up with this story yet.
W. Neil Eggleston makes his living defending politicians against criminal charges and going up against congressional investigations. That’s right, President Obama hired a criminal defense attorney as his Chief Counsel.
Which begs the question: Exactly what is Barack Hussein Obama so worried about? Which investigation or accusation does he believe is powerful enough to bring down his Presidency? It has to be something serious for the President to hire the top political criminal defense attorney as the White House Chief Counsel…
W. Neil Eggleston made a name for himself defending corrupt politicians against ethics complaints, criminal charges, and even constitutional challenges. Eggleston was one of the lawyers who defended Bill Clinton during the Whitewater scandal, which was an investigation into Bill and Hillary’s questionable investments into a failed business venture. Eggleston also defended President Clinton against numerous congressional investigations and lawsuits over the limit of Executive Power. He was hired by George W. Bush staffers to defend against congressional inquiries into the administration’s mass firing of employees. Essentially, W. Neil Eggleston is the guy that liberals call when scandals threaten to topple a regime. He is the guy that the Left calls on to cover its tracks and make sure that the crimes committed are never revealed to the American people.
The fact that Barack Obama chose a lawyer with extensive experience representing government officials in congressional and criminal investigations as his chief counsel should be enough to show that Congress is close to getting to the bottom of something HUGE!
Did the IRS targeting of conservative groups go all the way to the top of the White House? Did Barack Obama issue the stand-down order that left four brave Americans in Benghazi, Libya to die? Are more spy programs about to be leaked that show more of the Obama administration’s lawlessness? Is Congress finally going to find the backbone to put all of the pieces together and once and for all impeach this criminal occupying the Oval Office?
I pray to God that Congress impeaches this President. To allow this lawlessness and tyrannical expansion of Executive power to continue is a dangerous precedent to set and one that we simply cannot afford.
It is no coincidence that the President names a seasoned criminal defense attorney as White House Chief Counsel just as all of the evidence begins to trickle in proving the Obama administration’s complicity in these scandals. Obama realizes that his Presidency is teetering on the brink and he is determined to do everything possible to maintain power!
The Obama administration is preparing to mount a defense against all of the accusations levied against it. You can rest assured that the White House is doing everything in its power to hide documents, silence witnesses, and stonewall Congressional investigations!
If we wait any longer, it will be too late! Congress must impeach President Obama NOW! Not a few months from now after the Obama administration has been able to hide the evidence… he must be impeached NOW!
Tell Congress that the evidence is overwhelming and Barack Obama must be impeached!

Joe Otto
Conservative Daily
P.S. Please forward this email to your friends and family! It is absolutely imperative that we get the word out before it is too late!

Tell Your Friends!

Make sure your friends read this too...we need every voice we can get to change the status quo in Washington! Forward this to a friend »


Thursday, April 24, 2014

Democrats and Guns. Hypocrites and Oxymorons.

It is true, some Democrats do like guns. They like them for personal protection, just like you and me. Those that do just don't want everyone else to have one. California Senator Dianne Feinstein is a prime example, she has a concealed carry permit. Of course, those Democrats who don't like guns usually have armed personal body guards but ordinary citizens can't afford them.
There is a story today on about Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democrat candidate in Kentucky running for U.S. Senate. It sums it up in just two short paragraphs.

Anti-Gun Harvey Weinstein Opens Checkbook for NRA Member Alison Lundergan Grimes

Grimes has tried to portray herself as a pro-gun candidate in Kentucky, boasting that she has a membership with the National Rifle Association. She has even offered to go shooting with McConnell and posted photos of herself holding a gun.
It appears that Weinstein sees through the mirage, donating to a Democratic candidate that would likely vote against the NRA if elected to the Senate.
Now if we can only get the NRA to pay attention to that last sentence. They seem to have their own problem with Democrats. They give endorsements to many Democrats for the most trivial of reasons because they feel they might be pro-gun, regardless of how liberal they are on other issues, and year after year those same Democrats they helped get elected turn around and vote for one gun control bill after another.

From: Daily Sanity, Warning: Obama Figured Out How to Take Your Guns!

DailySanity Newsletter from

Warning: Obama Figured Out How to Take Your Guns!

Dear Conservative,
Back in January, just after the New Year, I warned you that Barack Obama was preparing to radically change how people are evaluated for firearm ownership.
The Founders knew that a day would come when a democratically elected tyrant would try to disarm the American people. That is why they included the handy phrase “shall not be infringed” within the Second Amendment. You can’t blame the Founders… they never could have imagined that over the centuries, such a simple and straight-forward phrase would come to be ignored.
This past January, Barack Obama revealed that he was instructing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to radically change the definition of a “prohibited person.” Rather than obeying the wording passed by Congress so many years ago, Obama believes that it is time to illegally change the law based on what Congress should have written back in 1968…
Within days, the ATF had proposed a new rule change and opened up the floor for public comment. Together, we flooded the halls of Congress with literally thousands of faxes and letters to force them to act. Now, comment period is coming to an end. Unless Congress acts now to stop this Imperial President from rewriting the law, the administration will be able to illegally disarm tens of thousands of people!
Tell Congress to STOP Obama and the ATF from illegally changing the gun control laws!
In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act in response to the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King. The law’s intent was to prevent deranged individuals from obtaining firearms or ammunition. However, even the laws with the best intentions end up being abused…
The portion of the law pertaining to “prohibited persons” is simple: “It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person…has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
This wording couldn’t be clearer. The statute defines a “mental defective” as someone with “marked subnormal intelligence” or “gross ignorance or imbecility.” Anyone who actually bothers to read the law understands that it was designed to deal with people who were seriously mentally challenged or had some other developmental deficiency. This isn’t a situation where Congress was vague in writing the law… it was explicit!
Yet, Barack Obama believes that the law needs to be adjusted to meet today’s “needs.” That’s a fancy way of saying that he thinks more people should be denied their God given, constitutionally protected rights!
That is why he has instructed the ATF to illegally redefine the term “mentally defective” to apply broadly to “unstable and irresponsible people,” expanding it to include anyone suffering from “mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.” The ATF believes this term is “outdated,” so instead of asking Congress to amend the law, the Obama administration has instructed bureaucrats to just change it on their own!
Now, I know what you might be thinking… that doesn’t seem like that big of a change. But believe me, it is huge! Congress never intended for people to lose their constitutional rights if they are grief stricken at the loss of a family member or returning from war with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Yet, those are exactly the types of people who are now being targeted by this illegal alteration to the law!
The ATF is also changing the definition of the phrase “committed to any mental institution.” Congress defined this term to mean any situation where a person is involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility. These aren’t things that happen often. There needs to be something seriously wrong with someone for them to be admitted to a mental ward against their will. These are usually instances where a person poses a direct threat to himself and those around him.
The new changes will alter the law to apply to “both inpatient and outpatient commitments.” These are two entirely different things. The former applies to individuals who literally cannot function in society. These are the people that the 1968 Gun Control Act was designed to prevent from owning firearms. However outpatient mental health treatment is used for people who are significantly less threatening. These are people who are grieving or require some medication or alternative treatment.
With this order, Obama administration has claimed the authority to determine who is allowed to own a gun and who is prohibited. It doesn't matter whether this clarification is "common sense,” the President simply doesn't have the authority to dictate who loses Constitutional rights. This is the most dangerous precedent of Obama’s presidency and one of the most threatening expansions of Executive power in our history!
Tell Congress to STOP Obama and the ATF from illegally changing the gun control laws!
Make no mistake: this is why the Founders included "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment. They knew a day would come when a tyrannical leader would try to dictate who is and who isn’t allowed to own weapons. I regret to inform you that the day that the Founders feared has finally arrived!
We cannot allow President Obama, or anyone for that matter, to pick and choose who is afforded constitutional rights!
This is how tyranny always starts. At first, Obama will assert this authority for “common sense” public safety measures. But these precedents are extremely dangerous. If we allow this President to define who is disqualified from owning a firearm, there is nothing to stop Obama, or some future President, from expanding the definition to disqualify all law-abiding citizens from owning firearms.
The writing is on the wall. If left unchecked, these new executive orders will give the Executive Branch the authority to infringe on our constitutional rights at any time!
You must fax the entirety of Congress to force them to stop Barack Hussein Obama’s ATF from pushing more unconstitutional gun control laws on the American people!
This isn’t some exaggeration. This is exactly why the Founders explicitly wrote that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”
However, the Founding Fathers have long-since passed away. They can’t stop King Obama... only you can!
The Second Amendment, and the entire Bill of Rights for that matter, is in danger. We have been given the obligation to cherish and protect our Constitutional rights for future generations, and we all must answer the call now!
Tell Congress to STOP Obama and the ATF from illegally changing the gun control laws!

Joe Otto
Conservative Daily
P.S. Please forward this email to your friends and family! It is absolutely imperative that we get the word out before it is too late!

Tell Your Friends!
Make sure your friends read this too...we need every voice we can get to change the status quo in Washington! Forward this to a friend »

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

From, ACT! for America: "Top Ten List of Extreme, Objectionable, Intolerant, WHATEVER, quotes from CAIR over the last 20 years."

Great Idea, Ibrahim Hooper!
Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s national mouthpiece, certainly picked the wrong person to push around when he tried his usual shenanigans during a recent interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. Click HERE to watch the fireworks if you missed it. 
Mr. Hooper challenged Ms. Kelly to “please find something that CAIR has done or said…that you find either extreme, objectionable, intolerant, whatever.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has followed up with a “Top Ten List of Extreme, Objectionable, Intolerant, WHATEVER, quotes from CAIR over the last 20 years.” Enjoy (and share).

Great Idea, Ibrahim Hooper!

IPT News

In a heated exchange last week, Ibrahim Hooper – national spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – issued a put up or shut up kind of challenge to his organization's critics.

Hooper was pressed by Fox News host Megyn Kelly about CAIR's record of failing to condemn terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizballah and other questionable positions. Hooper tried to deflect, blaming "Internet hate sites" for fueling "hate-filled smears against CAIR, which was founded in 1994.

"Please find something that CAIR has done or said in those 20 years that you find either extreme, objectionable, intolerant, whatever," Hooper said.

Don't mind if we do.

We've documented CAIR's dubious record for years, noting in a 2009 report that the group responds to the very kind of specific examples Hooper demands to see by issuing ad hominem attacks against the messenger.

So, in a decidedly-less funny tribute to Late Show host David Letterman's pending retirement, here are the IPT's top 10 examples of "extreme, objectionable, intolerant, whatever" actions by CAIR. Together, they undermine CAIR's credibility as a mainstream, reliable arbiter in the debate about terrorism, extremism and the treatment of Muslims in America:

You'll have to provide your own drumroll.

10. Using civil rights instruction to scare the daylights out of Muslims and drive a wedge between the community and the FBI.

CAIR officials say their "Know Your Rights" seminars simply are meant to educate people that they have a right to have counsel present for questioning if the FBI approaches.

That would be fine if that's all they were. But CAIR's message is wrapped in paranoia, casting the FBI as an out-of-control monster whose agents will do everything and anything to set up innocent Muslims.

"They will do anything, anything within their power and oftentimes beyond their power to get you to talk," CAIR-New York board member Lamis Deek said at a 2011 seminar. "They will threaten you. OK? I've had one case where they tried to blackmail my client, I mean blackmail, seriously blackmail; that's illegal. But they'll do it."

This came two months after CAIR's San Francisco chapter posted a flyer online urging Muslims to "Build a Wall of Resistance. Don't Talk to the FBI." In response, Hooper tried to minimize the incident as a misinterpretation. The problem wasn't the flyer and its message. Instead, he told Fox News – surprise! – it was an "attack by the Islamophobic hate machine."

9. False Accusations of FBI Shootings

It has not happened often, but FBI agents have shot and killed Muslim suspects in separate episodes. In each case, CAIR immediately cast the shooting as unjustified, and demanded independent investigations. In each case, those wishes were granted. But when the reviews reached the opposite conclusion, that the shootings were justified based upon the suspect's actions, CAIR refused to accept that the suspect may have escalated the situation. This emphasis on blaming law enforcement no matter what should be viewed in the context of CAIR's campaign against the FBI illustrated in #10 above.

In 2009, agents shot and killed Detroit Imam Luqman Abdullah. Abdullah fired first as agents moved in to arrest him for conspiracy and weapons charges. A Justice Department Civil Rights Division investigation concluded that agents opened fire "only after Imam Abdullah brandished a concealed handgun and shot toward them and that they legitimately feared that Imam Abdullah was in a position to cause death or significant injury to another."

Even though the report made a point of showing that audio recordings, ballistics and other evidence all corroborated the agents' accounts, and even though "[a] Glock 9mm handgun was found next to Imam Abdullah after the shooting and it had been fired," CAIR officials continued to cast the shooting as "an overblown military type raid." CAIR dismissed the findings, along with similar conclusions from the Dearborn Police Department and Michigan attorney general, as "superficial and incomplete."

Last month, CAIR again took issue with an independent investigation for failing to agree with their spin. Ibragim Todashev, a friend of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was shot and killed by an FBI agent after hours of questioning in his Florida apartment. Todashev, a "skilled mixed-martial arts fighter," implicated himself in a triple murder in Massachusetts. Witnesses say he grew anxious and agitated before heaving a coffee table at the FBI agent, hitting him in the head. He grabbed a five-foot-long metal pole over his head "with the end of the pole pointed toward [the FBI agent] as if intended to be used to impale rather than strike," the investigation found.

CAIR's Tampa director said the report raised "several concerns and key inconsistencies and ... many important unanswered questions." The failure to bring charges hurts the FBI's credibility, he wrote on Twitter.

8. Refusing to Condemn Hamas and Hizballah as Terrorist Groups.

CAIR officials are great about condemning "all forms of terrorism and religious extremism." But try to drill down and ask about specific terrorist groups and CAIR does everything but give a straight answer. They'll stick with the universal rejection of anyone who engages in political violence as spokesman Corey Saylor did in 2008. Or, they'll refuse on principle, as Hooper did in 2002 when he told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that "We're not in the business of condemning."

That's consistent with Hooper's dodge in the weeks after 9/11. Challenged by journalist Jake Tapper, Hooper hedged when it came to Osama bin Laden, saying "If Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name." Tapper was surprised — "why qualify the response?" he asked.

"Hooper said he resented the question."

Or, they'll go to bluster.

In that 2001 interview with Tapper, Hooper rejected the question about Hamas as "word games from the pro-Israel lobby."

This past November, CAIR-Los Angeles chief Hussam Ayloush reacted angrily to the very question. Simply being asked to condemn Hamas was "not acceptable," he said, and "proves that you have nothing but bigotry in you."

The group had no reservations condemning Israel, however, especially after it struck Hamas targets. CAIR condemned the killing of Hamas founder and spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin. The statement didn't mention his role in Hamas, but cast him as "a 67-year-old quadriplegic and the most prominent Palestinian Islamic figure."

In 2008, CAIR called reporters to a news conference to condemn Israel's 2008 "Cast Lead" incursion into Gaza aimed at stopping rampant Hamas rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians. CAIR co-founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad demanded "that our government, the U.S. government, take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza and its population."

He said nothing about the Hamas rocket fire.

For CAIR officials, attacks on Israeli civilians may not be seen as terrorism, but as a form of "resistance."

7. Lying About it to Megyn Kelly and Fox viewers.

In his appearance on Fox last week, Hooper misled the audience.

"We've condemned Hamas, we've condemned every Hezbollah, we've condemned -- we've condemned every organization that's on the list of terrorist designated by the U.S. government," he said.

6. Standing by Accused Terrorists and Terror Supporters

Our 2008 dossier on CAIR featured an entire section devoted to CAIR's consistent behavior in casting doubt on terrorist and terror financing prosecutions. In each case, it was more than reminding people that, in our system, a person is innocent until proven guilty. To CAIR, these cases were inherently flawed, driven by politics, and unfair to Muslim Americans.

Among the examples:

  • The conspiracy case against 11 Northern Virginia men who trained and planned to travel to wage jihad against American troops in Afghanistan after 9/11 was draconian and an example of "selective prosecution of Muslims since the 9/11 terror attacks."
  • The 2008 conviction of five men tied to the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) "was based more on fear-mongering than on the facts," CAIR said in a statement. "It is particularly troubling that the government chose to use testimony from an anonymous witness, which deprives the defendants of their full right to confront their accusers. We expect the defendants to appeal this verdict and believe that it will eventually be overturned."
It wasn't.

  • The 2011 arrest of Mansssor Arbabsiar for plotting to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, which was tied to elements inside the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps's Quds Force was dismissed by key CAIR leaders as a trumped up entrapment case.
A year later, Arbabsiar pleaded guilty, admitting that "he conspired with officials in the Iranian military who were based in Iran, to cause the assassination of the Saudi Arabian Ambassador while the Ambassador was in the United States." CAIR said nothing about that.

But that position is consistent for CAIR, which casts virtually all arrests of terror suspects in FBI sting operations as inherently suspect. CAIR-San Francisco representative Zahra Billoo told a local television "that the FBI was looking for a sensational story" rather than stopping a threat when it arrested a man who believed he was about to blow up a packed Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Ore. Walid, the Michigan director mentioned earlier, has said that the FBI "has recruited more so-called extremist Muslims than al-Qaida themselves."

CAIR officials also have claimed that the war on terrorism had become a war on Islam, a statement considered significant in radicalizing young Muslims. When we wrote about it in 2011, Hooper demanded a correction. CAIR officials, he argued, merely said there was a perception. Their emphasis on this issue, he argued, somehow had nothing to do with accepting or reinforcing that perception.

5. Working to silence/marginalize critics, especially fellow Muslims

This one is fresh from the headlines. CAIR helped pressure Brandeis University last week into withdrawing plans to bestow an honorary degree on author Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She renounced Islam, and is dedicated to combating abuse of women in Muslim societies, especially the incidents of female genital mutilation. It is driven from her personal experiences.

But CAIR likened the original Brandeis plan to honor Hirsi Ali "to promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites."

CAIR has twice failed in attempts to get Zuhdi Jasser, a fellow Muslim who opposes CAIR's Islamist political agenda, removed from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Most recently, CAIR believed Jasser should be disqualified because they don't like people who have supported his work financially. Jasser was appointed to a new term a week ago.

CAIR even tried to intimidate Somali Americans who were trying to stem the flow of young men in the Minneapolis area who returned to Somalia to fight with the al-Shabaab terrorist group. It called two men "anti-Muslim" for participating in a seminar which included a discussion about al-Shabaab.

4. Trying to stifle any discussion radical Islam plays in terror attacks and plots.

When Army psychiatrist Nidal Hassan opened fire on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009, CAIR argued that Hassan's religious motivation should not be part of the ensuing debate. Hassan, however, self-identified as a "Soldier of Allah" on his business card and gave a presentation called, "Why the War on Terror is a War on Islam." But Hooper went on a radio show to speculate that perhaps Hassan "just snapped ... when these things happen and the guy's name is John Smith nobody says well what about his religious beliefs? But when it is a Muslim sounding name that automatically comes into it."

CAIR officials downplay religious motivation in other terror plots and say terms like jihad and radical Islam should not be used in discussing terrorist plots and attacks by Muslims. In that vein, CAIR conspired with a political scientist in 2010 to gin up sales of a book which claimed that religious extremism was a minimal factor in suicide bombings.

3. Soliciting dictators for donations.

CAIR directly asked the late-Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi to underwrite a program to distribute Qurans. Awad praised Gaddafi as "the world Islamic popular leader." Law enforcement sources told the IPT that Awad met with officials representing Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir in November 2009, months after Bashir was charged with crimes against humanity.

State Department records show that a CAIR delegation sought millions of dollars during trips to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in 2006.

2. Appearing on Iranian and Hamas television to criticize the treatment of Muslims in the United States.

Though the practice has waned, CAIR officials from throughout the country have proven more than happy to appear on Iran's Press TV and Hamas's Al-Quds television. The CAIR representatives rarely spoke about the freedom Muslims enjoy in America. Rather, they painted pictures of Muslims being demonized in America and unfairly targeted by law enforcement. The one time Hooper did say something positive, he followed it by saying, "there is also a sense of being under siege from these hate mongers that are constantly trying to demonize our faith."

When violent, anti-American protests broke out in Muslim countries in 2012, a CAIR official told Press TV that, "People have had enough of what is seen by them, what looks to them like America's war on Islam."

And the No. 1 example of CAIR being "extreme, objectionable, intolerant, whatever..."

The Palestine Committee.

Although it is a Muslim advocacy organization, CAIR was born from an original sin. It was part of something called the Palestine Committee, a Muslim Brotherhood umbrella organization created to support Hamas politically and financially. The evidence for this comes not from "Internet hate sites," as Hooper is fond of saying, but from internal documents seized by the FBI and admitted into evidence in the HLF trial.

Here's a Palestine Committee meeting agenda listing CAIR among its member organizations. Here's the committee's telephone list, including CAIR founders Awad and Ahmad (listed as Omar Yehya). Here's a federal judge's opinion that the government produced "ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR .... with Hamas."

CAIR has never acknowledged this history. They even tried to argue that the Palestine Committee never existed.

It didn't work.

This evidence is the reason that the FBI cut off relations with CAIR outside of official investigations in 2008.

"[U] ntil we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner," an FBI assistant director explained in a 2009 letter. [Emphasis added]

The policy remains in effect, meaning the question has not been resolved.

Yet, in his interview with Kelly, Hooper tried to make relations between CAIR and the FBI seem fine, saying "we have relations, we're on a daily contact with the FBI on civil rights issues –on a variety of things."

Rather than acknowledge their record and try to claim things have changed, Hooper and CAIR engage in denial and deflection. Read through this Top 10 again. The examples cited come from the mouths of CAIR officials themselves or from court documents.

CAIR must fear what would happen if the broader public understands that, thus the emphasis on "Internet hate sites."

Ibrahim Hooper issued a challenge. We thank him for it.


Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.


ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591