Odd? Baltimore Asks For FBI's Help With Gun Violence/Murders?

The gun violence and homicide rate in Baltimore is no laughing matter.  Murders are at levels that haven't been seen in two decades.  Like a lot of cities experiencing record crime rates, much can be attributed to the "Ferguson Effect" or, more accurately stated, de-policing.  This has been primarily created by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division's intervention. This has caused the police to pull back for fear of being prosecuted for murder or for violating a black person's civil rights.

So, here's the odd thing.  The mayor of Baltimore wants the FBI to fix the violence problem. Who does the FBI report to?  The Justice Department.  This, to me, is like a dog chasing its own tail.

References:

Baltimore’s mayor finally asks for federal help with their murder epidemic: http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/02/baltimores-mayor-finally-asks-federal-help-murder-epidemic/

DOJ "Ankle-Bracelets" The Chicago and Baltimore Police: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2017/01/doj-ankle-bracelets-chicago-and.html

Democrats Anti-Trump Circus over Gorsuch

When I listened to the Senate Gorsuch hearings for his nomination to the Supreme Court, the Democrats had very little to condemn this man for.  His answers to their concerns sounded both logical and sincere and he remained unflustered.  Yet, the Dems kept coming back to one ruling that they think paints him as a heartless S.O.B. who would leave a truck driver to die in 14 below weather.  In this supposed "Frozen Trucker" case, Gorsuch ruled against the majority and sided with the company who fired the trucker for leaving his rig behind on the side of the road to find gasoline. Gorsuch ruled against the trucker because of Federal law and simply told the Democrats that if they didn't like his ruling, then change the law.

So, out of 2700+ rulings, the Democrats believe that just this one ruling should disqualify him.  The Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer also claims that Gorsuch is a "conservative" ideologue and unfit to be on the Supreme Court.  A fact that I find interesting since the website FiveThirtyEight researched his rulings on the 10th Circuit and actually found him to be more liberal than many of the other justices on that court.

But, still, the Democrats don't want him on the Supreme Court.  In another effort to block him, they are now claiming that as long as Trump is under investigation by the FBI, he has no right to appoint anyone to the "court".  Where were these people when Hillary was running for President and under an FBI investigation for her private email server?

Just how long are Democrats going to carry on this circus of blocking Trump at every turn?  Can we please get on with the business of running the government?

References:

Dems Pounce on Gorsuch's 'Frozen Trucker' Ruling: http://www.newser.com/story/240189/frozen-trucker-case-looms-in-gorsuch-hearing.html

Schumer Says Gorsuch’s ‘Conservative Ideology’ Makes Him Unfit for the Supreme Court: http://observer.com/2017/03/charles-schumer-neil-gorsuch-conservative-ideology-trump-supreme-court-nominee/

For A Trump Nominee, Neil Gorsuch’s Record Is Surprisingly Moderate On Immigration And employment discrimination: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/for-a-trump-nominee-neil-gorsuchs-record-is-surprisingly-moderate-on-immigration/

In Move to Slow Gorsuch Confirmation, Dems Cite FBI Probe: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/03/23/in_move_to_slow_gorsuch_confirmation_dems_cite_fbi_probe_133419.html

Hillary Clinton's FBI investigation: What you need to know ... - CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/30/politics/clinton-fbi-investigation-comey/

pb

Hillary's Political Jiu Jitsu In This Latest FBI Investigation

Hillary Clinton is a trained, licensed, and former practicing lawyer.  As such, she knows that no investigative agency, such as the FBI, is ever going to release evidence in a case prior to the conclusion of an investigation because, to do so, could prejudice a potential trial or possible exoneration.

But, hours after it was revealed that the FBI had reopened the investigation of Hillary's emails based on newly found evidence on a Weiner/Abedin laptop, Hillary called for the complete release of any and all evidence the FBI is holding.  Of course, the makes her look as if she has nothing to hide and implies innocence.  I wish she used the same "get it all out" judgement when she BleachBit all her emails on her personal server.  This is simply Clinton politics as usual and she knows it.  And, she damn well knows that FBI Director Comey will never do what she is asking him to do because that would be unethical.  Of course, "ethics" has never been one of Hillary's strong points.

Further, she is also fond of referring to the FBI action as a "review" rather than an investigation.  It sounds much less serious that way.  Another, political and very lawyerly tactic.

Lastly, the evidence that the FBI suspects is there, must be particularly damning for them to announce these actions just 10 days before the election.  Logically, one can assume that the heat they're taking now may pale in comparison to whatever heat they may receive for not disclosing this highly explosive investigation until after the election.  

References:

Clinton calls on FBI to release 'full and complete facts' of email review: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/

pb

The Murky World of the Clinton Foundation

According to Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation has raised $2 billion since 2001; and helped 430 million people in 180 countries.  That certainly sounds like a very effective charitable concern.  However, the facts get a little murky when people start digging into the spending habits of this foundation.

According to their tax return for 2014, the Clinton Foundation took in $178 million.  Just $5.2 million was doled out to other non-Clinton charities.   The largest donations went to other "Clinton" charities.  $23.2 million was given to the Clinton Global Initiative.  $12.3 million to the Clinton Library.  And, $8.3 million to the Clinton Climate Initiative.  Most all of the rest of the monies went to salaries and administration, travel, rent, and office supplies.  For example, in 2014, the foundation spent $7.9 million on travel and $6.6 million on office supplies.  That's a lot of pencils, and far more than the $5.2 million in other charitable giving.

In fact, the Clinton Foundation's charitable activities were so confusing that a leading monitoring group, the Charity Navigator, put them on their "watch list" as being problematic.

On top of all of that, we find that in Hillary's recent release of she and her husband's tax return, 96% of the slightly more than $1 million in charitable deductions went to the Clinton Foundation.

Simply, it appears that under the umbrella of charitable giving, a lot of money does not go to charitable giving.  Certainly, this is why the FBI was investigating the "Foundation" as a public corruption case until Obama shut the investigation down.  Perhaps the fact that Bill Clinton has decided to close the Clinton Foundation in the Fall, even if Hillary loses, has more to do with an attempt to evade more scrutiny by the FBI should the Republican become president.  As usual, its always something with the Clinton's!

References:

Bill Clinton shuts down his 'global initiative' even if Hillary loses in bid to stop cash-for-access controversy - and will severely limit Foundation if she wins: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3747959/Clintons-foundation-alter-donations-policy-elected.html

Obama administration blocked FBI probe of Clinton Foundation: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/11/obama-admin-blocked-fbi-probe-clinton-foundation/

Clinton Foundation Spent Less Than 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014: http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/16/clinton-foundation-spent-6-percent-charitable-grants-2014/

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’: http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

96 Percent Of Hillary’s Charitable Donations In 2015 Went To Clinton Foundation: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/12/96-percent-of-hillarys-charitable-donations-in-2015-went-to-clinton-foundation/

Obama admin blocked FBI probe of Clinton Foundation corruption: Report: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/11/obama-admin-blocked-fbi-probe-clinton-foundation/

pb

Hillary Skirts the Truth With "Can't Remembers"

One sure way to wind up in jail is to lie to the FBI.  Answering a specific question with a definite "yes" or "no" when they know the opposite is true will put you in the slammer under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the US Code.  So, one of the ways to avoid running afoul of that law is to simply say "I don't remember" or "I can't recall"; making it impossible for the FBI to catch you in a lie.  That is, unless, you are already on record as having clearly shown you did recall or did remember.

It is interesting then, that when the FBI released their notes on Hillary Clinton's interview with agents regarding her email server, Hillary used the "can't remember/can't recall" tactic 39 times.  Here's a women that specifically recalled talking to Colin Powell about private emails, and receiving an email from him over the issue, but can't seem to recall if she was ever briefed on how to handle classified documents.

Really?????

References:

CNN: FBI releases Hillary Clinton email report: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/

How to Avoid Jail Time for Lying to the Government: http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/tips/avoiding-jail-time.html

Hillary Clinton Told FBI Colin Powell Advised Her to Use Private Email: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/hillary-clinton-told-fbi-colin-powell-advised-her-to-use-private-email.html?_r=0

pb

The Trial of Hillary Is Happening Anyway

When FBI Director Comey outlined a litany of security violations with regard to Hillary Clinton's email server, he essentially showed her to be a liar and a reckless individual on so many issues as this video clip of MSNBC's Morning Joe so clearly states:

In my opinion, this may possibly explain why Comey didn't bring any charges.

He merely tossed all of the violations out into the public domain and, as a result, she will be  tried in the court of public opinion; and, as that video shows, not favorably.  He could have simply handed the conclusions of his FBI investigation to the Justice Department without a press conference and allowed that agency to decide whether or not to press charges.  But, by having an unprecedented news conference, he ensured that what she did wouldn't be swept under the rug.  He also gave Donald Trump, the Republican National Committee (RNC), and any Trump SuperPacs, all the sound-bites they need to keep prosecuting her in that fabled public court.  In fact, as of this writing, the RNC has already released this ad:

If Hillary Clinton does lose the election because of her server problem, the Democrats may regret that she wasn't charged so that they could have had the opportunity run someone else for President.

References:

Morning Joe eviscerates Hillary Clinton in wake of brutal FBI report about email conduct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maVuOWDOHL8

Transcript: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Impossible! No Charges for Hillary Clinton?

The federal government takes security very seriously.  It doesn't just give you a security clearance and a pat on the back and let you go off on your merry way.  Instead, you are briefed on the responsibilities of having a clearance and you must also sign a legally binding  Standard Form 312 (SF 312) "CLASSIFIED  INFORMATION  NONDISCLOSURE  AGREEMENT".

When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, she was issued the highest possible security clearance known as "Top Secret/Special Access" and, as such, she would have had to sign a new SF 312. Following are some highlights of that Standard Form with regards to the use of her email server:

"Intending  to  be  legally  bound,  I  hereby  accept  the  obligations  contained  in  this  Agreement  in  consideration  of  my  being  granted  access  to  classified  information."

Also:

"I  have  been  advised  that  the  unauthorized  disclosure,  unauthorized  retention,  or  negligent  handling  of  classified  information  by  me  could  cause  damage  or  irreparable  injury  to  the  United  States  or  could  be  used  to  advantage  by  a foreign  nation. "

We know from the Inspector General's Report that she violated "unauthorized retention" because she never once sought authorization for her email server.  Additionally, from the FBI report we know that she and her aides were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" which was, again, a violation of her SF 3121 agreement covered by the statement  "negligent  handling  of  classified  information  by  me  could  cause  damage  or  irreparable  injury  to  the  United  States".  Additionally, she agreed that she may be prosecuted for violations of this agreement and lose her security clearance.

But, more importantly, the FBI report said this:

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information."

"...seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

This completely contradicts her claim that she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time they were sent or received.

In my opinion, Secretary Clinton grossly violated her sworn responsibilities in the handling of highly classified information.  And, now, she gets a pass on any charges?  Apparently, her signed agreement is as worthless as her word.  All this does -- along with the Inspector General's Report -- is reinforce the fact that she is a serial liar and incompetently reckless with the nation's secrets.  But, also, this shows that the FBI's integrity has been compromised.  Could we expect anything less from the pseudo-most-transparent Obama Administration?

Lastly, by rights, Hillary Clinton and her staff should lose whatever security clearances they now hold.  Of course that won't happen since you can't have a potential President that can't even read the lowest level of classified materials. But, does America really care?

References:

SF 312: CLASSIFIED  INFORMATION  NONDISCLOSURE  AGREEMENT: https://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf

The State Department inspector general contradicts several of Clinton's long-standing talking points: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/

Transcript: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Why the "No-Fly No-Buy" Proposal is So Wrong

Last December, Barack Obama said it was "insane" that people on the No-Fly List could buy guns.  Of course, to the average person, this sounds perfectly logical.

Following the Orlando massacre, the Democrats in Congress, and I might add, Donald Trump are pushing for a bill that would automatically deny you the ability to buy a gun if you appear on the No-Fly List,the Terrorist Watch List or, the Selective Screening List.

However, the most glaring problem is the lack of "due process" before you are placed on any one of these lists, and the similar lack of "due process" when trying to get off if you were erroneously added. 

In fact, various federal agencies, such as the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or the TSA, can just put you on a list without your knowing.  And, God help you if you have a name similar to someone already on a list, or you appear because of some  clerical error. Most people only find out when attempting to board a plane.

In fact, in 2004, the senior Democrat in the Senate, Ted Kennedy, found himself on the "No-Fly" list.  Also, back in December, Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch disclosed that an investigation found that 72 personnel from the Department of Homeland Security were on the Terrorist Watch List.  Even Nelson Mandela appeared on it in 2008.  Also, Fox News contributor Stephen Hayes found himself on the watch list because he had a one-way ticket to Turkey in order to join a Mediterranean Cruise that ended in Greece. It took 7 months of wading through bureaucracies to get himself cleared.  Then, there's Congressman John Lewis, who participated in last week's sit in to vote on the "No-Fly No-Buy" legislation.  He of all people should know the system is flawed since he found himself on that list for a year.  Of course, these are notable cases.  How many less affluent people are effected and have far less capability to correct the error. Yet, the Democrats believe this is a sure way to get killers off our streets.

While the aforementioned examples are some of the most glaring errors, there may be hundreds or even thousands of Americans who may find themselves wrongly deprived of their rights because of this.  We don't know how many because in most cases the lists, themselves, are secret except to the agencies who use and own them.  This is why the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has condemned the proposal to link the "No-Fly" list to the background check system for buying a firearm. Even the FBI doesn't want this used to block gun purchases.  Their rationale is that it would signal an ongoing investigation should a would-be terrorist decide to buy a gun.

The bottom line is that "No-Fly No-Buy" is another bad idea for gun control.  Another attempt by Democrats trying to do something, anything, to keep guns out of the hands of  Americans; even if their rights are being violated.  Lastly, neither the Orlando massacre nor the San Bernadino shootings would have been prevented by the "No-Fly No-Buy" proposal. None of those people were on the No-Fly List since the FBI had already closed any investigations of them.

References:

Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/05/politics/barack-obama-guns-congress/

Sen. Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html

72 DHS Employees on Terrorist Watch List: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/72-dhs-employees-on-terrorist-watch-list/

How A Journalist [Stephen Hayes] Ended Up On A Terror Watch List : NPR:  http://www.npr.org/2014/09/28/352290026/how-a-journalist-ended-up-on-a-terror-watch-list

8 Ways You Could (Easily) End Up On The No-Fly List: https://foramerica.org/2016/06/8-ways-end-no-fly-list/

No-fly nightmares: The program's most embarrassing mistakes: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/

Why Nelson Mandela was on a terrorism watch list in 2008: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/12/07/why-nelson-mandela-was-on-a-terrorism-watch-list-in-2008/

ACLU: Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

The ACLU rightly rejects the No Fly List for gun control: http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/06/the_aclu_rightly_rejects_the_n.html

DOJ overrules FBI on gun sales debate, says no-fly list can be used for ban: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/16/doj-overrules-fbi-gun-sales-debate/

Democrats end House sit-in protest over gun control: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/john-lewis-sit-in-gun-violence/
 

Apple's Hubris Leads to Public Embarrasment of iPhone Security

For decades, Apple Computer's main source of pride was its product's security.  First, it was the Mac's that seemed impervious to viruses that often plagued IBM PC's.  In the latest iteration of their vaunted security and privacy protection, Apple publicly went to war with the FBI over the federal agency's demand that Apple crack the security on an iPhone that was owned by Syed Farook -- the San Bernadino terrorist, and expose its hidden contents.  But, Apple stood firm; even willing to go to federal court to protect the contents of that phone.

However, Apple's stupidity lies in their belief that anything created by them is invincible and can't be cracked.  The publicity over the iPhone battle apparently attracted a third party wanting to prove that the iPhone is vulnerable.  Whether because of pride or for financial reward, someone finally figured out how to hack that phone for the FBI; leaving Apple with a hollow feeling that, at least one party has found a way into its iPhone's security system.  And, if they can do it, others will ultimately prove that they can as well.  If so, the iPhone's security compromise is sure to become widespread and end up in the public domain.

The public fight was sheer tactical stupidity by Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple.  What he should have done is quietly worked with the FBI -- protected by non-disclosure agreements -- to provide the hidden data on that phone.  Now, Apple owners will never again know if their phone is truly secure.

Reference:

FBI hacks into terrorist's iPhone without Apple: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/03/28/apple-justice-department-farook/82354040/

The Myth That Too Many Guns Are Being Sold Without Background Checks

If you're a gun control advocate, you most likely believe that the current amount of gun violence is a direct result of too many guns being sold without background checks.  However, the FBI statistics throw cold water on that argument.

Since the FBI started conducting the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (aka NICS), under the Brady Bill in late 1998, more than 220 million checks have been performed at the time of firearm sales:

Click on image to enlarge

There are now an estimated 270 to 310 million guns in this country compared to approximately 90 million in 1998, when the checks began. Therefore, at least 100% of the guns sold (primarily as new) were given background checks.  Of course, this is not to say that there aren't guns  being transferred between individuals as gifts, private sales, or inheritances, that aren't required to get background checks.  But, statistically, it is a little hard to believe that as many as 40% of the 310 million guns in this country, or 124 million, never received background checks because of individual transfers; as some gun control advocates would have you believe.

The simple reality, is that the gun background check system is working for the vast majority of firearm sales in the U.S.. Increasing checks for personal transfers is not going to take the many stolen guns off the streets that ultimately find themselves in the hands of criminals. Nor, will it stop those who may become dangerously mentally ill many years after a gun purchase. Nor, are increased background checks going to stop the near 90% of all violent crimes in this country that don't involve guns.

References:

FBI: NICS Stats: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf

CNN: Polls: Gun ownership declines, support for less gun control on the rise: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/politics/gun-ownership-declines-support-for-less-gun-control-on-the-rise/

Guns and Crime: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

Property Crime has been reduced as handgun supplies increased: http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CRIME-AND-GUNS-Property-Crimes-and-Handgun-Supply1.png

Clinton's claim that 40 percent of guns are sold at gun shows: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/16/clintons-claim-that-40-percent-of-guns-are-sold-at-gun-shows-and-over-the-internet/

In Just 2 weeks, 10 Deaths and 2 FBI Failures

Just hours after Dylann Roof killed 9 innocents at the Emanuel AME Church, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama blamed the deaths on the lack of tighter gun controls. Now, we find out that Dylann Roof -- under current gun laws -- should never have been allowed to buy the gun in the first place.  Because of human error in the FBI's background check process, Roof's prior felony drug conviction was not flagged and therefore there was nothing stopping him from purchasing the firearm.

In the case of the recent killing of a San Francisco woman by an illegal alien that had been deported 5 times, and who had committed several crimes, the FBI should have arrested him months ago when they were notified that the SF police had him in custody.  So, as a result of that error we have another murder that could have been avoided.

These kind of FBI failures are not uncommon.  One of the shooters at the Draw Mohammed Contest in Garland Texas had been on the FBI's radar for years.  Yet, where were they  when, days before, this guy was talking up his plans under the clear-as-day hashtag  #texasattack?

Before the Boston Marathon bombing, the older Tsarnaev brother also surfaced on FBI radar and was even interviewed by them.  Some even think he was recruited as an informant. Yet, he went on to kill and maim.

Then there was the Fort Hood shooting.  Nadal Hasan was also interviewed by the FBI when he came to their attention after having been in e-mail correspondence with radical jihadist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.  Yet, he was able to later kill without intervention.

The President says he's tired of all the mass killings in this country.  Well, tired as he may  be, perhaps he and his Justice Department should try and ride herd over his own FBI before he calls for all kinds of new gun laws.

References:

Dylann Roof should NOT have been allowed to purchase a gun and was able to because background check system FAILED: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156588/FBI-Church-gunman-shouldnt-able-gun.html

San Francisco sheriff says feds to blame in immigrant shooting case: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/san-francisco-killing/

Texas Jihad Attack Exposes FBI Failure: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/texas-jihad-attack-exposes-fbi-failure/

Internal Documents Reveal How the FBI Blew Fort Hood: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/nidal-hasan-anwar-awlaki-emails-fbi-fort-hood

FBI pushed elder Tsarnaev to be informer, lawyers assert: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/28/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-attorneys-seek-government-evidence-tamerlan-say-may-help-defense/PJoDIO3Tdf3zIau7VM9m8L/story.html

Mourning Charleston, Obama calls for stricter gun laws: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/18/obama-charleston-statement/28919199/

Clinton, Obama seek gun control in wake of Charleston: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-charleston-gun-reform/



 

OK The Confederate Flag In S.C. Is Gone. Now What?

As I am writing this, South Carolina has removed the racist, Confederate flag from the State Capital grounds.  A flag that ceased being the official flag of the South 139 years ago. So, now, blacks are safe from murdeingr racists whites. Right?  The only problem is that statistically whites don't kill blacks.  Blacks do.

According to FBI records, 2491 blacks were murdered in 2013.  Only 189 offenders in those deaths were white.  2245 where black.

So, what flag do we need to take down to keep blacks from killing other blacks?

References:

FBI Murder Statistics: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

S.C. Statehouse will take down Confederate flag Friday: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/09/south-carolina-house-confederate-flag/29901255/

Since 1987, the FBI Has Been Hiding Hispanic Crime Stats

Trying to find FBI crime statistics on Hispanics will prove fruitless.  90% of Hispanic crime is included with white statistics, with the balance being lumped in with black crime. But, while you can't find Hispanics, you will find the minority statistics for "American Indian or Alaskan Natives" and "Asian or Pacific Islanders".  They have been doing this since 1987 when they began hiding Hispanics from the annual reporting.

See full table in References below

So, why include Hispanics in with whites?  The only explanation is political; starting with the signing of Reagan's Amnesty Act in November 1986. This is because, if Hispanic crime was separated, you would see that it far exceeds most white crime making any form of amnesty questionable.  For example, look at this chart on the 2014 murders in New York City from the NYPD's latest annual report:

As you can see, murder in New York City  -- especially by gun -- is primarily a black and Hispanic problem; with whites only accounting for 6% of murder arrests.  This, even though whites are the majority population in that city.

Now, while, New York City with its high Hispanic population (28.9% versus 13% for all the U.S.) may not be representative of all Hispanic/Latino crime in America, it still shows that whites have much lower murder rates when compared to Hispanics.  A fact that is consistent with all other categories of crime in New York City, and a fact that the FBI has been hiding all these years.

Thanks to efforts from groups like the ACLU, the 2014 statistics (due later this year) will breakout Hispanic as a separate category and I think, America will be shocked at how much crime they are responsible for.  A fact that may somewhat derail the push to give millions of Hispanics amnesty and, ultimately, citizenship.  More crime, by bringing illegals out into the open, is not what this country needs.

References:

FBI: Crimes By Race -- Table 43: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf

New York City Crime Report: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/enforcement_report_year_end_2014.pdf

New York City Quick Facts: Racial Makeup: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651000.html

FBI To Track Latino Arrests For Uniform Crime Report: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/fbi-latino-arrests_n_3492521.html

The Sad Truth About Black Murder In America

The only time that President Obama, Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson ever show any concern about a black person being murdered in this country is when a white cop is involved.

Yet, of the approximate 12,500 victims of murder each year, 50% are black.  This despite the fact that blacks only makeup 13% of the population. And, of those deaths,  93% of them are at the hands of other blacks.

By ignoring these statistics and only focusing on killings involving cops, black leaders are cheapening the deaths of all too many blacks.

According to the FBI, in 2011 there were only 393 officer-involved deaths.  So, cops killing Americans of any color is a small fraction of the murders in this country.  Certainly, nowhere near the 6,329 blacks who were slain in 2011; primarily by other blacks.  In my opinion, this tells us that we don't have a policing problem.  However, one would think so, based on all the commentary and protests over the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Grant.

I think its time for black leaders -- including our President -- to focus in on the real problem of black murders in this country instead of sidestepping the issue by only blaming cops. While there are no statistics to prove it, I'm quite sure that the total number of black murders would actually be a lot higher without the police doing their jobs and maintaining order in highly black populated neighborhoods.  Every time a police officer (black, white, or whatever) is able to remove an illegal gun from someone following a traffic stop or in some other interaction, the chances are pretty good that a life may have been saved as a result.  In Chicago, alone, 7,000 illegal guns were taken off the streets in 2012.  If even 1% of those guns would have ultimately been used in a murder, that's 70 lives saved;  probably 35 of which would be statistically black. 

As a country, we need to appreciate the roll of our police and not denigrate them.

References:

FBI: Expanded Homicide Data: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

A look at statistics on black-on-black murders: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/jul/17/tweets/look-statistic-blacks-and-murder/

Why does Chicago have so many illegal guns?: http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/10/22/why-does-chicagohavesomanyillegalguns.html

Three Terrorist Acts, That Aren't Called Terrorism

I think most people would agree that the beheading of a female employee in Moore, Oklahoma by a radical Muslim male co-worker is a form of terrorism, though not the FBI or the local police.  They are both referring to this as an act of workplace violence.

The same is true with the Fort Hood Shooting.  Now, 5 years after the fact, it is still defined as  workplace violence.  Further, the U.S. Treasury has refused to label the Boston Marathon bombing a terrorist act.  As a result, in all these cases, the victims and their families are being denied access to federal funds under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.

An important question though, is why aren't these horrendous events not being considered terrorism by The President?  Is it because Obama doesn't want to admit that, under his watch, there have been acts of terrorism on U.S. soil?  Something that never happened after 9/11 with Bush in charge. Or, is it because he doesn't want to admit that Al Qaeda and others still exist? After all, in November of 2012 he said this: “Thanks to sacrifice and service of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.” 

The simple fact is that terrorism does exist and, the radicals that commit these acts are growing in strength and numbers.  The worst kind of terrorism that we have to deal with is that which is associated with radical Islam.  Radicalized Muslims not only believe that violence against "infidels" is a good thing but, also, that dying while committing this violence is an act of martyrdom and an immediate path to heaven.  Contrary to Obama's politically motivated lie that Al Qaeda was "decimated", the truth is that its still alive and growing.

I think this Administration needs to start recognizing terrorism where it exists.  Not to do so results in our President having to admit that he and his National Security Director James Clapper underestimated the ISIS threat.  It would also have meant that, perhaps, both the Boston Marathon Bombing and the Foot Hood Shooting could have been avoided because, in both cases, the FBI had the perpetrators in their sights but did nothing.  And, one also has to wonder why the Oklahoma beheader wasn't on the FBI's radar with all the radical postings on his quite public Facebook page.

References:

Scarborough Scalds FBI for Labelling OK Beheading 'Workplace Violence': http://townhall.com/news/around-the-web/2014/09/29/scarborough-scalds-fbi-for-labelling-ok-beheading-workplace-violence-n1898166

Boston Marathon Victims Denied Insurance Reimbursement Because Bombing Was ‘Not Act of Terrorism’: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/09/177128-administration-determines-boston-marathon-bombings-act-terrorism-reason-absurd/

Terrorism Risk Insurance Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Risk_Insurance_Act

Boston bomb suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev penned confession in boat: report The 19-year-old, who was hiding from cops, left a message confessing to the Boston Marathon bombing. The confession reportedly said he and his brother planted the bombs in retaliation for U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/boston-bomb-suspect-left-confession-boat-report-article-1.1345642

Obama Has Touted Al Qaeda’s Demise 32 Times since Benghazi Attack: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-touts-al-qaeda-s-demise-32-times-benghazi-attack-0

Jihad Against Infidels and Democracy: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03637751.2010.495949#preview

Obama: U.S. underestimated rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-u-s-underestimated-rise-of-isis-in-iraq-and-syria/

‘SHARIA LAW IS COMING!!!!’ Oklahoma Beheader Celebrated Terrorists, Disparaged Non-Muslims On Facebook: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/26/sharia-law-is-coming-oklahoma-beheader-celebrated-terrorists-disparaged-non-muslims-on-facebook/

Did the FBI miss a chance to stop Tamerlan Tsarnaev?: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-the-fbi-miss-a-chance-to-stop-tamerlan-tsarnaev/

Fort Hood Shooting: FBI Fights Claims It Ignored Intel on Hasan: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1937574,00.html

Al-Qaeda hasn't gone away, and is gaining: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/07/al-qaeda-spread/4358845/

The Question Nobody Seems To Be Asking About Sharpton's "Snitch" Story

According to the "Smoking Gun," Al Sharpton "snitched" for the FBI on some of New York's prominent drug kingpins such as the Genovese family.  While everybody seems to be focusing on the ethics of Sharpton even being a "snitch", nobody seems to be questioning why he became one in the first place. At one point, he was actually caught on tape discussing cocaine deals with an undercover FBI agent. Now we all know that dealing cocaine is a felony punishable with some hard jail time.  So, the question is: Did Sharpton trade jail time for being a snitch?  If so, he really is a felon.

Of course, Al is fully denying either snitching or working for the FBI.  But, think about this.  Would anyone really want the world to know that you might have put some NYC mobsters behind bars?  The penalty for doing that may be a little steep.

Reference: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/8/rev-al-sharpton-denies-snitch-allegations-i-was-vi/

The Last Three Terrorists: Zero Degrees Of Separation

It amazes me that the Obama Administration didn't know of the Times Square Bomber "before" that bomb was placed and set to go off. I believe that this would-be terrorist should have been under surveillance following the capture of and information obtained from the Underwear Bomber and the Fort Hood Shooter. However, it is evident, now, that the obvious was being ignored because the last three terrorist acts -- the Fort Hood Shooter, the Underwear Bomber, and the Times Square Bomber -- all had one thing in common: Communications with the American born and radical Yemeni-based cleric, Abu Bakr al-Awlaki.

I would have thought that our brilliant national security departments such as Homeland Security, the FBI and the CIA, would have had an early bead on the Times Square Bomber by virtue of his now-known communications with al-Awlaki. But, the zero degrees of separation between all three of the last terrorists actions appears to have been completely ignored. I would hope, by now, and for the sake of us all, that a mistake like this is no longer possible and that any American having communications with al-Awlaki is closely monitored by our law enforcement and security agencies. Maybe if the Obama Administration would drop their "lone wolf" mentality about terrorist acts and start connecting the dots to radical Muslim ties, we might just be a lot safer.

Obama Admin. Caught in a Lie On The XMas Day Bomber?

A couple of weeks ago, Robert Gibbs, the President's Press Secretary, said that the FBI learned all that they needed to learn about the underwear bomber's activities in the first 50 minutes of interviewing him on Christmas Day. This was apparently after Abdulmutallab was read his Miranda Rights and before he lawyered-up and was advised to stop talking.

Then, last week, we were advised by Obama's security people that Abdulmutallab started talking again and they are now getting information based on the FBI's advanced interrogation technique of using Abdulmutallab's parents to convince him to talk (I guess using the typical Mommy/Daddy threat for him to either start talking or you'll be grounded and you'll go to straight to bed without dessert). Obviously, this interrogation technique is better than any waterboarding!

So, what is it? Did Obama's people get all the information they needed on Christmas day? Or, as we are being told now, are we getting the needed information because Mommy and Daddy are intervening on our behalf? Certainly, if the FBI got all that they needed on Christmas, they didn't need to extract anymore information. And, they certainly wouldn't have needed Mommy and Daddy's help. Right?

This thing smells all over the place; yet, the mainstream media seems to be totally clueless. Obviously, the Obama Administration thinks they can feed the American people a bunch of B.S. and they'll just completely fall for it. Even when they are being caught in an obvious lie.

One more thing. If the Advance Mommy/Daddy Interrogation Technique works so well why don't we make it part of the Army Field Manual under the chapter on battlefield interrogations. Are we going to use it on Osama Bin Laden once we've captured him? In fact, I can just hear Osama Bin Laden now: "No! No! Please, don't! Not my Mommy and Daddy!"

Just give me a break! This people are amateurs!