Monday, September 19, 2016

Stop and Frisk


I have always been a supporter of the police 'Stop and Frisk' method of policing until recently. I found out I really did not know what I was supporting. The idea to a conservative seems okay in order to reduce crime, but the price is too high to pay when you really come to understand what it involves.

In 2011, the New York City police stopped and searched 684,724 people without any real probable cause except profiling of people. Out of those, 88 percent were black or Hispanic. The New York Police Commissioner said the purpose of the searches were to get guns off the streets, but only in 0.02 percent of the searches turned up any type of weapon.

I have read some of the police reports concerning some of the most ridiculous searches (which most were) and could not believe such police techniques were taking place in the land of 'freedom'. Keep in mind this is all happening while professional criminal (professional bankers) on Wall Street were stealing billions of dollars from innocent investors via the mortgage scam and serving no jail time.

The majority of those arrested were charged with suspicion of Marijuana (although none was found) or blocking a public entrance or blocking a public sidewalk. When they would arrive at the Forty-Second Precinct in the Bronx they would be offered deals - plead guilty, be fined $25 and walk out. Those that refused (which were few) had a trial date set. The trial according to New York statue was suppose to be held within 90 days. The VICTIMS would arrive for the court date and the prosecutor would get an extension because the State was not ready for trial. This would go on sometimes for a year and each time the VICTIM would be offered a plea deal. Most of the time the VICTIM would eventually get tired of missing work or sitting all day in court and would just enter a guilty plea and discover instead of $25 the fine was now $500 plus. Those that could not pay served their time in Rikers Island jail or one of the New York State youth prisons.

The New York City Police Department actually had special plainclothes officers and uniform officers patrolling buses, subways, streets to make arrest. They would arrest one and put him in a van and move on to arrests others when the van was full they would take them to the precinct. It is believed the officers assigned to that duty were on a quota system. I will concede that crime rates did drop in the early 1990's, but I am no longer convinced it was due to 'Stop and Frisk'. Nobody really knows why the crime rate actually dropped there could have been many contributing factors.

Police were even allowed to stop and frisk people in the hallways of their apartment buildings and I am not talking about government housing projects. Hallways of private apartment buildings were considered public spaces.

It is estimated that over one million police man hours were spent on these arrest in one year. In 2012 alone 50,000 summons was written for marijuana possession, 140,000 for violating open-container laws, 80,000 disorderly conduct, 20,000 for riding bicycles on sidewalks. In poor neighborhoods you would be arrested for standing on the sidewalk in front of your apartment or on the corner or sitting on the steps of your apartment building, but in affluent white neighborhoods you could jaywalk and no summons would be issued. People in white neighborhoods were not even aware this was going on in their city.

One case I found interesting and there were many, many similar cases like it was a young black man got off his job (bus driver) his father picked him up at work and dropped him off at his apartment after midnight. As he was entering the apartment a friend that lived in the same apartment was coming out and ask to borrow five dollars. The young black man reached in his pocket and gave him five dollars and two officers came from no where and arrested them for making a drug deal. When no drugs were found the charges were changed to blocking a public entrance. The man would not sign for the ticket and was carried to jail. His case dragged on for a year and finally the prosecutor and judge realized the man was not going to pay a fine and walk away. A trial was finally held the judge ask the police officers if drugs were found to which they replied, "no". He ask was he blocking a public entrance and the officers said, "ye". At which time the young man explained he was coming from work and entering his own apartment building. The judge said you have a job to which he told him "yes driving a bus". The young black man told the judge that it was one in the morning and there was no one on the street. The judge ask the officers was that true and they admitted he was correct, but added they had the authority to arrest anyone standing in a public entrance. The judge threw the case out.

In the United States does a police officer have the right to tell you to move for no reason at all and if you refuse arrest you? This reminds me of Lethohatchie, Alabama in the late 1950's. It was understood blacks could not stand and talk on public sidewalks they had to keep moving. My cousin was the sheriff and harassing the blacks was something he enjoyed. One night his son and I rode with him when he arrested a black man for standing on the street corner and on the way to taking him to jail he stopped for coffee and left the rear door of the patrol car open. I was confused and when inside looking out the window I ask him wasn't he afraid that he would run off and my cousin laughed and said, "I hope he tries there will be one less nigger in Lethohatchie tonight" and he pointed to his gun. Similar policing existed in the 1990's and exits in the 2000's and we wonder why some blacks are protesting today. I do not approve of violent protest, destruction of property, killing police officers and riots, but I understand better now the frustration in the black poor communities.

One thing I never considered was when people are arrested for any thing it could prevent them from getting school scholarships, public housing, credit, employment, etc. The actual summons can sometimes not be the issue at all it is the public record that follows with modern police computer technology.

Some police stop people (usually minorities) and when they do not bend the way the officer wants them to they slap a summons on them.  This is not my words this is the words of Peter Moskos a former Baltimore police officer who wrote Cop in the Hood. If the police stop them and find nothing they will always charge them for loitering and issue a summons. In 2005, 22,000 people were arrested for loitering in New York City. The vast majority of those arrests were dismissed. If they want the police can arrest you for just about anything.

I recently read about a rogue police precinct in Brooklyn that routinely bust into homes without a warrant claiming they suspected the premises to be a drug house. When nothing was found they would bully the occupants to sign a form that they agreed to allow the police to search the premise. Does this sound far fetched. You are wondering why anyone would sign such a form after they had destroyed your property looking for something that was not there. I would have had the same doubts if it had not happen to me.

I owned Enviro-Tech Electronics in Houston, Texas. It was a high end stereo shop and we had customers spending $20,000 on sound systems that we suspected some were drug dealers. They were customers to us and nothing more. One evening the Harris County Sheriff's Department raided my business. They made everyone lay on the floor employees/customers and me.  They even tore the ceiling tiles out and found nothing. After they destroyed my property. An official from the department came and apologized and ask me to sign a form that I had given them permission to search the premises. I first refused and then I ask to call my attorney. My attorney told me to sign the damn form because if I did not they would sit out in front of my business everyday and stop and search every vehicle that left and my business would be destroyed. I signed. They left and even our customers stayed and helped us put the store back in order.  This happen shortly after the incident at Key Truck Stop on I-10 (Channelview, Texas) that was filmed on television and nothing was found. The owners refused to sign and within two years they were out of business because the Harris County Sheriff's Department officers stopped trucks leaving their truck stop delaying the drivers so they quit stopping Key Truck Stop.

If a police officer makes a bad arrests, and if a settlement is granted to those wrongly arrested the tax payers pay for the mistake. Not one penny comes out of the officers pocket. Sometimes settlements are made before the officer even knows one has been made.

There are two sides to every story and what it boils down to are we willing to gamble that our rights will not be violated and accept that it is okay to violate others peoples rights as long as we feel safer.







 





Thursday, September 15, 2016

The Department of Justice under President Obama was and is a joke!


The Justice Department under President Obama and Eric Holder was and is a joke!
Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama made sure that none of their friends in the banking industry went to jail for the crimes they committed. A large number of Covington & Burling’s Law Firm corporate clients are mega-banks like JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Bank of America. Lanny Breuer who ran the criminal division for Holder’s Justice Department and Eric Holder were lawyers for Covington & Burling prior to taking positions under Obama in the Justice Department.  Their specialty was protecting corporations, especially banking, investment and savings corporation from prosecution – looking for loopholes in the law that would allow them to escape prosecution if caught.

Covington & Burling was given the American Lawyer “Litigation Department of the Year,” award in March 2014 for getting clients accused of financial fraud off with  only a slap-on-the-wrist fines. if you want to understand what Eric Holder did for the perpetrators and firms of the largest financial fraud in history that blew up the nation’s economy in 2008, you only have to read one line from his former employer praising Eric Holder: “He helped them, get the best deal they could possibly get.”

As for homeowners, they received a raw deal, in the form of little or no compensation for some of the greatest consumer abuses in American history. As far back as 2004, the FBI warned of an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud, which they said would have “as much impact as the Savings & Loan crisis.” They were wrong; it was worse.

By the time the bubble collapsed, the recession hit and Holder took over the Justice Department, Wall Street was a target-rich environment for any federal prosecutor. Physical evidence to an untold number of crimes was available in court filings and county recording offices. The proof was there. Chief Executives could have been easily held criminally responsible for misrepresenting their risk management controls to bank regulators.

In 2009, Congress passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, giving $165 million to the Justice Department to staff the investigations necessary to bring those accountable for the financial crisis to justice. Keep in mind this was a Democrat House and Senate that gave Eric Holder the funds to prosecute these C.E.O.’s. Yet, not one major executive has been sent to jail for their role in the crisis.

The department has put real housewives in jail for mortgage fraud, but not real bankers. The D.O).J. saved their firepower for people who manage to defraud banks, not for banks who manage to defraud people. Most of the “investigations” of financial institutions over six years was swiftly moved to cash settlements, often without holding anyone responsible for admitting wrong doing or providing a detailed description of what they did wrong.

The National Mortgage Settlement, for example, was touted by Holder’s Justice Department as a $25 billion deal. In reality, banks were able to pay one-quarter of that penalty with other people’s money, lowering principal balances on loans they didn’t even own. Banks were even allowed to satisfy their obligations under the settlements through routine business practices (including some, like making loans to low-income homeowners that make them money.

A series of securities fraud settlements with JP Morgan, Bank of America and Citigroup, which the Department of Justice and Eric Holder approved and claimed cost the banks $36.65 billion, actually cost them about $11.5 billion and shareholders, no executives bore that cost. Wall Street Journal has found out that only 25% of the fines were actually collected from the corporations involved in the banking crisis.

The Department of Justice Inspector General criticized this in a March 2014 report and revealed that that the Department of Justice de-prioritized mortgage fraud, making it the “lowest-ranked criminal threat” from 2009-2011.
The banking sector’s get-out-of-jail free card gave them confidence that they could commit the same crimes again, with little if any legal implications and if you think the problem is not continuing you are naive.

The decision to protect banks instead of homeowners should be laid at the feet of President Obama and his administration. Guess where Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer work today – the law firm of Covington and Burling the law firm that represented the big banks during the crisis.

 Eric Holder was U.S. Attorney General when the world desperately needed the nation’s chief law enforcement officer to hold accountable the elite bankers who oversaw the epidemic of fraud that drove the 2008 global financial crisis and triggered the Great Recession. But, nearly six years in office, Holder announced on Sept. 25, 2014 that he plan to step down, without bringing to justice even one of the executives responsible for the crisis. His tenure represents the worst  failure against elite white-collar crime in the history of the Department of Justice. Eric Holder was careful not to step down until the statue of limitation ran out on prosecuting banking executives.

In both the U.S. savings and loan debacle of the late 1980's and the Enron-era accounting frauds of the early 2000's, there were more than 1,000 successful felony convictions in white-collar crime cases. In those cases Federal Prosecutors prioritized the top executives of the corporations responsible and sought convictions.

In addition to the failure to prosecute the leaders of those massive frauds, Holder’s dismal record includes 1) failing to prosecute the elite bankers who led the largest price-rigging cartel in history — the LIBOR scandal, in which the world’s largest banks conspired to rig the interest rates at which banks were willing to lend to one another, which affected prices on over $300 trillion in transactions; 2) failing to prosecute the massive foreclosure frauds (robo-signing), in which bank employees perjured themselves by signing more than 100,000 false affidavits in order to deceive the authorities that they had a right to foreclose on homes; 3) failing to prosecute the bid-rigging cartels of bond issuance in order to raise the costs to U.S. cities, counties and states of borrowing money in order to increase banks’ illegal profits; 4) failing to prosecute money laundering by HSBC for the murderous Sinaloa and Norte del Valle drug cartels; 5)  failing to prosecute the senior bank officers of Standard Chartered who helped fund terrorists and nations that support terrorism; and 6) failing to prosecute the controlling officers of Credit Suisse who for decades helped wealthy Americans unlawfully evade U.S. taxes and then obstructed investigations by the DOJ and Internal Revenue Service for many years.

How quick minority voters either forget or never knew that Eric Holder blamed them for the banking crisis.  Eric Holder stated on more than one occasion that mortgage fraud was largely an ethnic crime that was committed almost exclusively by primarily ethnic borrowers rather than the officers controlling the lenders.

Eric Holder in June 2016 still maintain the Department of Justice did not have the evidence to criminally prosecute banks – how much more evidence did he need? Eric Holder, for a combination of political and self-serving reasons, held his department back.

Career prosecutors in 2012 wanted to criminally charge the global bank HSBC for facilitating money laundering for Mexican drug lords and terrorist groups. But Holder said no. Aggressive attorneys wanted to prosecute HSBC, but Holder overruled them. From 2006 to 2010, HSBC failed to monitor billions of dollars of U.S. dollar purchases with drug trafficking proceeds in Mexico. It also conducted business going back to the mid-1990's on behalf of customers in Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Burma, while they were under sanctions. Such transactions were banned by U.S. law. So many people within the Treasury Department were pressuring Eric Holder to charge HSBC than he finally on November 7, presented HSBC with a “take it or leave it” offer of a deferred prosecution agreement, which would involve a cash settlement and future monitoring of HSBC and no criminal charges and no admission of guilt. HSBC negotiated until December getting employee bonus’ guaranteed, a guarantee no employee would ever be criminally prosecuted and the fine reduced and that no one at the bank would ever be tried for aiding terrorist – Eric Holder agreed.


Will President Obama share these facts while on the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton or will he continue to blame George Bush and the Republican Party for all that is wrong with the United States Government?

September 16, 2016 - Deutsche Bank stated  today they have no intention of settling with the U.S. Justice Department over their part in the mortgage/banking scandal for $14 billion dollars. They will not accept any offer higher than Eric Holder gave U.S. Banks. 

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Things I did not know about Israel/Palestine


Last week I began to think how can the Arab’s believe Israel is taking over the Middle East.  There are 22 Arab and or Muslim nations. Iran is not considered and Arab nation. Israel is surrounded by Arab and or Muslim nations. How can anyone say "expansionist Israel" has "taken over" the Middle East or trying to take over the Middle East?

The Arab countries occupy 640 times the amount of land as does Israel and outnumber the Jews of Israel by nearly fifty to one. How convenient that today's Arab Nations are forgetting that land east of the Jordan River was also part of "Palestine". Why are they not demanding Jordan return that area to the Palestinians?

In 1916 control of the southern portion of the Ottoman Empire was turned over to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region. Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank" and Gaza ) was given to Great Britain.  Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine.

The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an attempt to rid the land of swamps and malaria and to prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land did not only attracted Jews back to the land it also attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt by the Jews to get rid of the Arabs in the land.

in 1946 Trans-Jordan was renamed to "Jordan". The remaining 18% of Palestine, now WEST of the Jordan River, was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland.  However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then or now. With the help of the British the Jews were forced out of Trans-Jordan!

The British at first tried to maintain order but soon due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East they turned a blind eye. It became clear to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs and drive out the British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations.

The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 18% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State  based upon population concentrations.  The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River. Therefore, the resolution was not carried out and it never became legally binding! The Arabs started the 1948 war.

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war.

The truth is that most of the Arab Palestinians who left Israel in 1948 – between 400,000 to 500,000 – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jews. They left because they believe the Jews would be exterminated and would return afterwards to reclaim their homes, and to inherit Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong.  The Jews  did not throw out all the Palestinian Arabs living in Israel they chose to leave after being encourage to do so by the seven Arab nations that invaded Israel. Those Arabs who did not flee became Israeli-Arab citizens.

The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State. From 1949-67 when all of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem were under Arab [Jordanian, Syria and Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Why do many in the world want the Jews to give up part of their country when none of the Arabs were willing to concede any of their land to the 'so called' Palestinian Arabs?

Throughout much of May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel's narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion to eliminate the State of Israel. Within two hours the Egyptian Air Force did not exist most of its planes were destroyed while still on the runways. Unaware that the Egyptians had no more air force, King Hussein of Jordan launched his attack from the his West Bank into Israel, while Syrian troops prepared to descend down the Golan Heights high ground into northern Israel. The Arabs lost the battle in six days they had once again underestimated the Jewish Nation of Israel.  

Now, 35+ years later and despite the fact that Israel won a war started by seven Arab nations and fought by three Arab nations the Israelis are still willing to allow the Arab-Palestinians to have a state on much of the West Bank and Gaza if only they would stop sending their suicide/homicide bombers into the heart of Israel.

Israel was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious Israeli General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. I think this was madness. The Arabs would have slaughtered the Jews if they would have had an opportunity to do so and to this day are still trying to. Dayan's plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza and inside Israel Proper itself. He thought he would be able to build a healthy relationships with the Arabs – how wrong he was.  If he build a bridge to the Arab world it was a bridge to terrorism.

Jordan accounts for 3/4 of Palestine's original land mass. Though they may call themselves "Jordanians," they are culturally, ethnically, historically and religiously no different than the Arab-"Palestinians" on the "West Bank." Even the flag of Jordan and the flag of the proposed 2nd Arab-Palestinian state on the West Bank / Gaza look almost identical. Why do they not give the 'so called' Palestinians their own land to establish a State or Nation. 

Another thing that is interesting to me is the term "Palestinian". The name had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940's, and has been slowly redefined to refer to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. I guess political correctness started much earlier than we thought. 

The Middle East Conflict was always a war by Arabs against Jews, not a conflict between Israelis and "Palestinians." The war was repackaged as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians as a public relations gimmick by the Arab fascist regimes. These regimes had never had any interest in "Palestinians," or in creating a "Palestinian" state, or in "Palestinian nationalism" before 1967. The Palestinians are a regional group of Arabs having virtually no cultural nor national distinctive traits separating them from Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians. They are all basically Arabs. Yasser Arafat’s family came to Gaza from Egypt and a wealthy family of current PA President Mahmoud Abbas moved to Tzfat from Damascus, Syria!

The Middle East war continues because it is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also in large part a war between barbarism and civilization and in many ways an Islamic religious jihad against the Jews.


Thursday, August 4, 2016

Judicial justice or vigilante justice - you decide.


The criminal justice system doesn’t always gets things right, and wouldn’t even if all those running it were honest and fair and sometimes it seems few of them are, but the alternative is far worse. Vigilante justice in which the citizens and police officers acts as judge, jury and executioner without given the accused a day in court is dangerous to all of society. You are foolish if you think because you are a law abiding citizens it has nothing to do with you. Road rage is vigilante justice! Today vigilante justice may seem justified by many in society when it comes to drugs, child abuse, elderly abuse, pedophiles and rape, but who is to say vigilante justice will stop with just those illegal acts.

If you think everyone ever accused of a crime is guilty I again say you are foolish. Innocent people can be targeted. Lisa-Jayne Samuels was given a 20 month sentence for making a false rape allegation against Terry Brown. Lisa-Jayne Samuels was a serial rape liar, but initially the police took her claim seriously. Mr. Brown was attacked by a vigilante mob who stabbed him. Even worse, his pregnant fiancée tripped and fell during a confrontation and suffered a miscarriage. The man was innocent and eventually Lisa-Jayne Samuels was charged for filing false charges and convicted.

American vigilantism originally came about as a frontier response to the threat and reality of crime. The first settlers who moved to the Deep South and the Old West were not protected by a criminal justice system. There were no law enforcement agencies, no regularly scheduled court sessions, no nearby jails or prisons, and there was a vast open spaces to which offenders could escape from their victims. In the absence of any legal system victims and their allies felt compelled to track down and round up outlaws and "take the law into their own hands.”  That is not the case today.

People claim that the justice system today is only for the wealthy. Those people who claim that and support vigilantism need to study history and see who the vigilantes punished and even killed. They did not go after the wealthy they went after the lower class people and marginalized people.  

Vigilantism usually is the results of the government not doing its job and the citizens becoming frustrated. Instead of correcting the problems in government it is easier for some in society to go after the one they deem the ‘criminal’. Anyone and I mean anyone who supports vigilantism is breaking the law.

To legitimize their lawless deeds, vigilantes argued that their ends justified their means. They claim they are trying to preserve traditions, enforce moral codes, and further respect for authority. Their biggest claim is that they are trying to protect law-abiding citizens from internal and external evil forces.

More concerned with suppressing disruptive behavior than with respecting due process some elected officials approve of vigilantism.  It is simple, direct, swift, certain and those that are looking for a so called quick fix will support vigilantism. They will turn a blind eye to all the evils of vigilantism.

The Ku Klux Klan in the United States was a vigilante group. Originally they went after husbands that were abusive or neglecting their families, but they then started going after Black people, Jews, Catholics and those that were said not to have paid a debt.  Black Life’s Matter Organization in the United States is a vigilante group.

If you support vigilantism then why do you not support revenge killings, drive-by shootings, turf battles between rival drug-selling groups, and mob hits among warring syndicates. These are all a type of vigilantism. Teenagers act as vigilantes when they attack homeless vagrants and drive them away or set them on fire. Police Officers themselves engage in police vigilantism if they beat a suspect on the street, during the ride to the police station, or in its basement, in order to make sure the perpetrator is punished before being released with a mere "slap on the wrist" by the "revolving door" of an lenient justice system. When society ignores vigilantism police officers feel more empowered to carry out their street justice (vigilantism).

 Some in The right-to-life movement—convinced that abortion constitutes murder—assassinated doctors who legally terminated pregnancies or bombed the clinics where these medical procedures are performed (vigilantism). White supremacist Neo-Nazi groups randomly attacked complete strangers because of their race or religion because they are seeking vigilante justice. Militia groups are vigilantes. They set up their own "common law courts."

Support any type of vigilantism and I will venture to say one day it will come back to haunt you. You will find yourself on the other side of the fence and then you will oppose curb justice or vigilantism.  When you have a government that is endorsing vigilantism there is nothing that will stop it and while you fight drug addicts and pusher today in a few years you will be fighting vigilantes. This should be of grave concern for those that feared the regime of Marcos in the Philippines.

The Philippines in 1915 earned the dubious distinction of having the worst record of 87 countries in bringing wrongdoers to justice, according to a study of countries plagued by impunity. Is this the drug pusher or drug addicts fault? I do not think corruption in the Philippines is the cause of impunity, but it is the results of impunity. If you believe you are not going to be caught or punished for a crime you are more likely to commit a crime. Yes, corruption contributes to impunity, but it is not the cause. A failed justice system is the root cause of impunity. I believe  countries that do not provide opportunities for economic development also fail to reduce the unequal access to security and justice for their citizens.

Most courts in the Philippines have over one thousand cases on their dockets – an impossible task. Is that the fault of drug users and drug pushers? The Justice Department claims there are not enough courts. Is that the fault of drug users and drug pushers? A lot of the courts that are established do not have judges to staff them. Is that the drug users and drug pushers fault? judges appointed to cases take longer than the time limitation of three months fixed by the Constitution for them to decide a case some cases go on for years. Is that the drug user or drug pushers fault? Do the cases move at a snail pace because there are no jury system in the Philippines and all cases are decided by a judge? If that is the case is that the fault of a drug user or drug pusher?  Maybe vigilantism looks good now, but will it really solve the problems that plagues Philippine justice?   I do not think so.

As of August 3, 2016 Police figures show that 402 drug SUSPECTS have been killed since the end of June. That figure does not include those slain by suspected vigilantes. Two hundred eleven more men are known to have been killed by vigilantes. These being killed are not rich people they are the poor in Philippine society. They are not the wealthy Drug Lords - many of them are a part of government. 565,805 have turned themselves in and promised to straighten out their lives and released. Drug addiction is not something you can cure with a promise and the Philippine government does not have the facilities or the funds to provide rehabilitation for these men. What has happen when these men turned themselves in they put a target on their backs to be killed by vigilantes.


Innocent until proven guilty - justice – equal treatment for all - moral legitimacy are the rights guaranteed to the people living under a democratic government and without those rights they might as well be living under a dictator or monarch.  Freedom is a slippery hill to climb and when you start sliding backwards you do not usually stop until you have lost all your freedom. 

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Democrat Convention - Played on emotions - little truth


Captain Humayun Khan, a Muslim American was ordered to Iraq years ago, his father wanted to talk to Donald Trump about his being an American Muslim soldier sent to war in a Muslim country. While I have great sympathy for Captain Khan’s parents I feel he distorted what Donald Trump has said. I understand in Captain Khan’s grief he may have taken what Donald Trump said and only heard what he wanted to hear. I also believe like many American's he believed the twisted lies of the media and the Democrat Party.

Captain Khan, 27, died on June 8, 2004, after he told his men to take cover and then tried to stop a suicide bomber outside the gates of his base in Baquba. Captain Khan and his parents are not the Muslim’s Donald Trump is trying to protect the American citizens from. Muslim Americans that are outraged by what Donald Trump has said are not putting the interest and safety of American citizens first and foremost.

Mr. Trump’s call for restrictions (ban) on Muslims entering the country is for the safety of American citizens and that should be the first responsibility of the President of any country. Donald Trump has not called for a permanent ban on Muslims. He only wants to give the U.S. Government time to setup procedure and policies that would help prevent terrorist from entering the United States. He is not for open borders which have proven to be a disaster for European nations and the United States. It appears Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party are more interested in being politically correct and winning Hispanic votes than protecting American citizens. I question where exactly does their loyalty lie.

Captain Khan’s father said If restrictions on Muslim immigration had been in place decades ago neither he, a lawyer with an advanced degree from Harvard Law School; his wife, Ghazala, who taught Persian at a Pakistani college before raising three boys in the Washington suburbs; their eldest son, Shaharyar, who was a top student at the University of Virginia and a co-founder of a biotechnology company; nor Captain Khan, who posthumously earned the Bronze Star, along with a Purple Heart, for saving the lives of his men, would have been allowed to settle here. That has nothing to do with the present terrorist problems facing the nations of the world. Donald Trump nor any other American would have even considered putting restrictions on Muslims “decades” ago. The time have changed and in the interest security for American citizens our immigration policies must change to meet the new threats.

The Democrats used Captain Khan's father and that is a disgrace. His speech was emotional and worthy to be told, but not at the Democrat National Convention. Captain Khan's father’s story is worth far more than to simply try and win votes for Hillary Clinton.  I am sure his father is very proud of his family, a foreign family that has integrated nicely into the United States.  I am proud of them and the millions of other foreign citizens that have done the same, but that does not mean I am for open borders at a time like this. Hillary nor the Democrat Party cared about his loss they only cared about how it might turn voters against Donald Trump. Like Hillary said in the Congressional hearings "What difference does it make (to her) now".

Mr. Khan criticized Mr. Trump’s statements as UN-American in an article published by Vocativ just a short time back. Please explain to me why it is UN-American to try and protect American’s from Radical Islamic Terrorist.

I found it interesting that Mr. Khan said Hillary’s campaign asked whether he needed speech writing help or any coaching. It seems they were really concerned that he would said the words that advanced their cause not Mr. Khan’s. 

I served in Vietnam and as a veteran I found it offensive that Mr. Khan took a swipe at the fact that Donald Trump has never served in the military. I might add Mr. Khan nor his other son have ever served in the American military and I do not think that makes them less of an American than their son that did. Mr. Khan needs to realize we have an all-volunteer military and if Mr. Trump was not drafted during the Vietnam conflict then he simply is like thousands upon thousands of other American boys. If I am not mistaken Hillary Clinton has not served in the U.S. military nor has her husband Bill Clinton.

Mr. Khan met his wife at Punjab University in Lahore, Pakistan. They moved to Dubai, where their two eldest sons were born, then arrived in Houston, renting a $200-a-month apartment. Eventually they settled outside Washington, where Mr. Khan worked at a mortgage company and at law firms. I suppose the $200 a month rent remark he gave to reporters for an apartment in Houston, Texas in 1980 was supposed to denote a difficult time. I am from Houston, Texas and in the 1980’s,  $200 a month would have gotten you a very decent apartment. Better than most lower middle class people in Houston lived in. Two hundred U.S. dollars in 1980 is equal to $579.57 in 2016.  A brand new town-homes on Lake Houston with swimming pools, tennis courts, putting range, parking, near parks, airport, malls and The Woodlands which is and exclusive neighborhood is advertised  today - 4 Bedrooms, 2 baths, $1,090 per month with a $200.00 deposit.  What is difficult for one family is luxury for another.

I think we should also note that their son was killed by a MUSLIM does he not want Americans to try and protect their family from the same danger occurring within the borders of the United States.

Khan said that Hillary Clinton, "called my son the best of America." I would think Donald Trump and most if not all Americans would call him the same. Once again the Democrats got the emotional speech they wanted in an attempt to play upon the emotions of American voters and win votes. They did the same when they used the mother’s that had sons killed by the police. There sons were not the best of America, but the Democrats got the boost they were looking for by using these mothers for their purpose.

"Look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law,'" Mr. Khan said while standing next to his wife, waving the paperback document of the Constitution vigorously and questioning if Donald Trump had ever read the Constitution. The Constitution is for the protection of United States Citizens, not for aliens that have not even entered the United States. That is the very reason Muslim Islamic Terrorist were held in Guantanamo Bay in order to prevent them from having Constitutional rights.

By the time Mr. Khan speech was over I began to wonder if  ethnicity was more important to him than being a United States citizen or in the least were their some conflict in his mind between ethnicity and United States citizenship.

"Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed," he said, believing that with hard work he could raise his three sons "in a nation where they were free to be themselves and follow their dreams." He and his wife both had impressive University degrees so they were not like most immigrants. He should speak with the illegal aliens crossing the southern borders of the United States and then he would understand what EMPTY-HANDED really means. It also appears the United States has been very good to him and his family.

"Vote for the healer," Mr. Khan said, "not the divider." Obama and Hillary are healers of racist tension. Unfortunately Mr. Khan was not in the United States during the 60’s and cannot see how under Obama and Hillary our country is reverting back to the same racial tension we experience then. He has no comparison to use as to what a healer really is. Obama and Hillary both support the Black Life Matters Organization and that organization is not looking to heal racial tension in the United States.

The lack of action that Obama and Hillary Clinton took in Benghazi to protect our people is enough for me not to vote for her. Her failure to use a secured server is another reason I question her ability to be President. The Democrat Party emails released prior to the convention is enough to tell me that corruption is top to bottom in the Democrat Party. They will lie, cover-up, cheat do anything they can for one vote. What will Donald Trump do I really do not know, but I doubt if it will be more of the same failed policies. If he fails then I hope he fails trying something new.

I am not trying to take anything away from Mr. Khan ‘s grief and sacrifice, but his speech contained a lot of emotions and things stated as facts that are not exactly true. I still stand by what I said earlier he was used by the Democrat Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign.


Tuesday, July 26, 2016

They will know you are Christians by your LOVE!

I am a news junkie and it is hard for me not to listen and read the news daily. I also like the social media because I want to know what others are thinking. But, it is  getting difficult for me to read and listen to so called Christians espousing their hate, bigotry and hypocrisy these days, especially on social media. Many proclaim homosexuals cannot be Christians, well I have news for them they themselves are not Christians. 

Christians were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26).  Christians at the time did not call themselves Christians. The term Christian was created by none Christians to define a group of people that followed Jesus’ teachings. It may have even been a term used in a derogatory manner.  The non-Christians (pagans and Jews) noticed how the people that followed Jesus acted. They saw that these “Christians” tried to mimic the life of Jesus.  The title “Christian” was given to the followers of Jesus it was not a term they chose for themselves. The term “Christian” actually meant “little Christ.”

The Christians in Antioch were not known for their hate, venom, being judgmental,  religious pride and good theology. Instead, They were known for acting and behaving like Jesus Christ. I no longer believe that is true for many Christians today.

And they will know you are my disciples by your: rules, traditions, rituals, theology, right wing power, rhetoric, purity, denominations, your condemnation of those you think are evil, and your disgust of those who do not believe as you do.  I do not think that is what John 13:35 says, at least that is not what it says in my Bible. “And they will know you are my disciples by your LOVE” (John 13:35).

If you do not have unconditional love for others they will never know that you are a Christian no matter what you say or do.

What name would non-believers give us “Christians” today? I hate to think of the words that would be used to describe us today, but I am sure it would not be “Christian” - Christ like or little Christ.

If you are truly a Christian you do not have to tell people that you are. They will know by the way you live your life. They know you are by your love of ALL of God’s creation. Where did this idea come from that Christians can use words that make people hate them and in doing so Christ is proud of them?

Telling your gay co-workers they are destine for hell, you are destroying our society, you are trying to convert our children to your way of life, God hates you, God cursed homosexuals with AIDS, God is punishing us with storms because people are beginning to accept your life as normal and the list goes on and on and on - does not win souls to Christ and I do not think it makes you a Christian or a better Christian. Some Christians actually believe telling gays that God hates them is standing up for Christ.

I do not know where you stand on homosexuality or gay marriage and I do not care, but I think the response God wants us to share with those that differ from us is to tell them “God loves you.”  The same is true of how we feel towards Muslims. We cannot hate ALL Muslims because of the actions of a few Radical Islamist Terrorist. A man posted on social media following Peter Theil’s speech at the Republican Convention, “I hope the queer dies before he gets home”. If that is not Radical Christian Terrorism what is? People words like that are RADICAL CHRISTIAN TERRORISM!

Love is the proper (and only) response to ALL people, no matter what they believe or do, if we are followers of Jesus. If you want to represent Jesus to people, don’t do it by hating or condemning them and don’t use the line about how you “Love the sinner, but hate the sin.

How many Christians that are espousing this hate have stopped to think about the fact that the only people who really hated Jesus were the religious people. Those who were condemned and judged by the religious people loved Jesus and were accepted by Him. Could it be possible if the world hates you, but religious people love you, you might not be following Jesus. I pray that never comes to be a reality.

God’s love is UNCONDITIONAL love and it is getting harder to find Christians that have UNCONDITIONAL love.  I am beginning to believe those who love unconditionally, but do not claim to follow Jesus are closer to the Kingdom of God than those who claim to follow Jesus but only have conditional love. If God is love then it only makes sense to me that love must define the character of a Christian or anyone that believes in the one true God.

I have stated many times on this blog it is not what you say, post on social media or how many Bible verses you memorize or how often you attend church, take communion or attend Bible studies that makes you a Christian. Christianity is a lifestyle you choose and try to live 24/7, 365 days a year.

I do not care if you call me a Christian or not, but I do care if you cannot see Christ in me, for if you do not, I have failed my God. I refuse to sit back and say nothing and pretend what some are doing in the name of God (Christians and Muslims) against those that do not believe as they do is okay and that God called them to do it or that they are representing Christ on earth.  


Friday, July 15, 2016

Divided Nation / Divided Christians


Part II
Divided Nation / Divided Christians

Reading the comments in social media is alarming to me. It seems to me that many Christians today are traveling the same path that Islamic radicals are traveling they feel they are right and there is no discussion on the matter.

I believe that the Quran contains passages about fighting and I believe that the Bible contains passages about fighting that we would not agree with in 2016. I believe most Muslims today read those passages in  the same way most Christians read stories from Joshua in our Bible about the killing of Canaanite men, women, and children.  Most Muslims and Christians do not see these passages as commands to kill those who do not share their faith. However there are some Islamic extremists that see the Quran’s passages about the rules of engagement in wars from Mohammed’s time and prior as permission for violent activities and there are some Christians extremists (generally those who translate the Bible literally) that see the violence in the Bible towards those that did not believe as they did as a pass to violence today. The Quran and the Bible all contain passages that are not peaceful and passages that are peaceful. It is how we react and interpret those passages that makes the difference in 2016.

The Five Pillars of Islam are: (1) There is only one God – Christians should not have a problem with that; (2) Pray five times a day – it would be helpful if Christians adopted that practice; (3) Give to support the needy – Christians have always believed that; (4) Fast from dawn till sundown during the month of Ramadan – many Christians practice the tradition of fasting and I believe it is a healthy tradition; and (5) If possible make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime – many Christians go to Israel each year and many more would like to make a pilgrimage to Israel.

You see we have many things in common. Why don’t we try and concentrate on those things. Why do we generalize that all Christians and all Islamist are bad? Why are the extremist on both sides determined to prove that the Quran and the Bible is evil from beginning to end?

There are divisions among Christians and there are divisions among Muslims. Muslims and Christians have their own liberals, moderates, conservatives, fundamentalists, and extremists.

ISIS truly believes what it professes: that it is engaged in a conflict to bring about the end times. The primary enemies of ISIS are other Muslims who do not share their beliefs. The Islamic view of end times involves victory in a climactic battle in Syria among all the nations of the world and God’s people.  I would say the majority of Christians believe that there will be a climatic battle in the Middle East among nations and God’s people. Because Fundamentalist Christians and Islamic Extremist believe what they are doing is God’s work they are a difficult force to fight. Is it even possible to win over Christians who think God wants all homosexuals dead and when they voice hated for homosexuals they are doing God’s work or Islamist that believe God wants all Christians dead? I honestly do not know. If it is it will take a mighty work of the Holy Spirit to do so.

The division in the U.S.A. now over racism, disdain for the police, riots in the streets, a few rogue police officers, yelling at  one another on Kelly’s show (FOX) and bigoted social media post does not speak well around the world for the U.S.A. or Christianity. I think a  lot of people around the world and in the U.S.A. believe some American’s are acting as extremist. Many of us want to think of ourselves as a Christian Nation so we should act like it.

Paul, in his Letter to the Romans, expresses how we are to wage spiritual war: never avenging ourselves, never repaying evil for evil, overcoming evil with good. Most of us believe it’s wrong to judge an entire category of people based on the actions of a relatively small number of extremists within that group. At the same time, terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists within our midst have heightened our concerns about future attacks — from Adam Hamilton. I am not saying we should not use military force against ISIS. I am saying we cannot generalize about any group of people and we must be careful to the best of our ability to target ISIS and not all Muslims in general. I certainly do not want to be associated with literal radical Bible interpreters and many Muslims do not want to be associated with I.S.I.S.

We have legitimate fears about attacks by Islamic extremists, but how do we apply our faith in ways that balance those concerns for people’s safety with our belief that it is wrong to judge someone only on the basis of religion or nationality or gender or sexual inclination?

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:14-21). These scriptures are extreme and it  may be impossible to follow all of them, but the harder we try to follow them the better we will be and the world will be.

We are not battling Islam, because there is no such thing as one Islam. One Islam cannot be extracted from the numerous offshoots, branches, and sects that make the world's 1.3 billion Muslims as ideologically, religiously, and politically fractured as the other two monotheistic faiths, Christianity and Judaism.

The "War on Terror" should really be called the "War on Militant Islam or War on Radical Islamic Terrorist." The terrorists of September 11, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban all adhere to an ideology we have come to know as militant Islam, a minority outgrowth of the faith that exudes a bitter hatred for Western ideas, including capitalism, individualism, and consumerism.

It rejects the West and much that it has to offer seeking instead to implement a strict interpretation of the Koran and sharia (Islamic law). America, as radical Muslims see it, is the primary impediment to building an Islamic world order.  Radical Muslims have a history of violence against American, Western, and even Muslim interests. But the movement did not appear spontaneously it has taken 14 centuries to evolve.

Many Muslims adapted to the fast-paced changes common to Western industrialization and modernization, but some Muslims rejected them. Instead, they created a rigid ideology embedded in the traditional values and laws of the Koran. This is the known today as Islamic fundamentalism, or Islamism.

Islamism represents a yearning for the "pure" Islam as practiced by the prophet. Not unlike the American Amish, the movement rejects much that is innovative. Islamist, however, take the rejection of modernity a step further. They perceive those who have introduced these innovations as its enemy.

Islamist Radical Muslim Terrorist not only reject the influence of the West, they reject the legitimacy of their own governments in the Arabic world, which they see as subservient to the West. Therefore the overthrow of these regimes has become an important part of their agenda.

The biggest push for this agenda came in 1928, with the founding of the Ikhwan al-Muslim or Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This organization became the cornerstone for most of today's Islamist movements, advocating Islamic beliefs and values as expressed by the common Egyptian. The organization rejected western rule and England's secular influence over Egypt. Obama made a grave mistake when he embraced the Muslim Brotherhood over the dictator ruling Egypt for over three decades.

"The earthquake" came in 1979 when Iran became the first modern Islamic republic, as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew Iran's secular regime and established a new order in which sharia became law. Suddenly, Islamism was no longer an ideology of movements. It had inspired a state. America's first violent introduction to militant Islam came shortly after Khomeini's Islamic Republic was established in 1979, when Islamic extremists seized the U.S. embassy in the Iranian capital of Tehran.

Given that militant Islam has plagued America for 22 years the attacks of September 11 should not have been surprising. A trend had been established. So, perhaps the biggest shock of that tragic day was the nation's utter surprise. Psychologically, America was completely unprepared for the attacks - why? I think because our government has refused to make it clear who our real enemy is and name them – all for the sake of political correctness and a President Obama that seems to have some need to defend ALL Islam thinking that we are so naive that if we reject some Islam we will reject it all.

Bin Laden's own words. "We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars...We are ready for all occasions, we rely on God."

Militant Islam has strongholds in Algeria, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan, to name just a few countries. The challenge now for the western world is finding ways to destroy the radical infrastructure and arrest or kill militants while bolstering the influence of moderate Muslims.  No one in the Obama administration seems to know how we can accomplish this task. We cannot win without the support of moderate Muslims.  Hatred of ALL Muslims is not going to gain the support of moderate Muslims. Americans must come to terms on who are enemy really is and it is not ALL Muslims.


Until we Americans learn to love ourselves and each other we cannot expect the world to love and respect us. If we want to talk about Radical Islamic Recruitment I would imagine showing the division among our people is a great tool to use in their recruiting. One 30 second video of Americans fighting among ourselves in the streets is worth millions of words. It becomes okay to kill homosexuals if you can demonstrate that even your enemies, the Americans, hate homosexuals. It is easy to claim that Americans are out to destroy you if you can demonstrate that Americans are willing to destroy other Americans that do not agree with them. Finally it is easy to demonstrate that Democratic Laws do not work when we take to the streets and riot over injustice in our country rather than engaging in civil conversations about our differences and injustices.