"Hands Up...Don't Shoot" and What That Lie Is Supposed To Say

There is absolutely no proof that Michael Brown ever had his hands up in surrender, or that he ever said "don't shoot".   One of the most credible testimonies of the Grand Jury proceeding was that of Witness #10.  What he initially saw was a scuffle inside the police car with Brown reaching through the driver's side window. Then Brown ran away from the car; stopped and turned; made some kind of body gesture; and then charged the Officer Wilson ; at which time he was shot dead.

The reason why Witness #10 is so credible is because his testimony squared with other testimonies; including that of Officer Wilson. It also squares with the forensics data collected from the car and the scene; and with the results of 3 autopsies.

So, if "Hand's Up...Don't Shoot" never happened, why is this lie being perpetuated by protestors across the country, by some St. Louis Ram's football players, and now by some members of Congress? Well, as reported by the DailyMail, one protestor by the name of Taylor Gruenloh explained it like this:

"Even if you don't find that it's true, it's a valid rallying cry. It's just a metaphor."

A valid rallying cry? A metaphor?  A metaphor for what?  Are we now supposed to believe that we have a wholesale problem of police killing unarmed blacks with their arms up in the air in surrender?  Think about that.  If that was really true, wouldn't there be rioting all the time?  The fact is, that in the last 6 years, there have only been 5 riots and only one of those five was a result of a white cop shooting an unarmed black man by the name of Oscar Grant.  In that case, the white officer was tried and found guilty of manslaughter.

All the "Hand's up...Don't Shoot" lie is doing is furthering the tension between black citizens and white police. As a result, effective policing in black neighborhoods will be in decline.  White cops are not going to be as willing to confront suspected black criminals, and quite frankly, this hesitancy could get more cops killed.  Police being killed in the line of duty far exceeds two blacks being shot by white police in the last 6 years.  In the last 10 years, more than 1,500 police officers have be killed on the job.  Think about that when you thank about Michael Brown attempting to grab Officer Wilson's gun.

What is really sad, is that Officer Darren Wilson is being punished for the rest of his life for doing his job.  He confronted Michael Brown after he had just committed a strong arm robbery at a convenience store, followed by Brown attempting to take his gun, and then, ultimately having to kill Brown in order to stop him from charging and possibly attacking or even killing him. As one witness (a woman) said in watching Brown's actions: "...all I kept saying was, is he crazy?".  And, crazy he probably was.  He did have high levels of Delta-9-THC (the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana) in his blood stream.  Levels that were more than twice needed to cause mental impairment and the lack of, otherwise, normal judgement.  According to the University of Washington's  "Learn About Marijuana" webpage, pot can, in some cases, cause aggressiveness and violent rage; especially in adolescents. This is probably why Brown attacked Wilson in his car and why, even after being shot several times, decided to, as one witness said, "bum rush" Officer Wilson. Further, it should be noted that Brown had 1.5 grams of pot on his person when he was shot.

So, what is "Hands up...Don't Shoot" really saying.  It is saying that the criminal activities of blacks, like those of Michael Brown, should be ignored by white police; even if their lives are at risk.  The only metaphor that can be drawn from that fact is lawlessness.  Additionally, can we stop perpetuating the lie that Michael Brown was some kind of a saint?  If his pot use was at the heart of his behavior that day, and even if he had never crossed paths with Darren Wilson, there was a high probability that he would have eventually confronted some other police officer with potentially similar results.

References:

Witness 10 proves Darren Wilson had a reasonable belief he needed to shoot Michael Brown: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/01/witness-10-proves-darren-wilson-had-a-reasonable-belief-he-needed-to-shoot/

'Lie, Lie, Lie': Scarborough Blasts 'Hands-up' Congressmen: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2014/12/02/lie-lie-lie-scarborough-blasts-hands-congressmen

Did Michael Brown ever really say, 'Hands up, don't shoot': http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2854388/Did-Michael-Brown-really-say-Hands-don-t-shoot-Ferguson-protesters-rallying-cry-based-lie.html

5 Race Riots in Obama's Post-Racial America: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/11/5-Race-Riots-in-Obamas-Post-Racial-America

Cops Killed In Last 10 Years: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+cops+killed+each+year&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Evidence: Michael Brown Was High on Pot and Carrying a Bag of It: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/evidence-michael-brown-was-high-pot-and-carrying-bag-it

University Of Washington: Learn About Marijuana: http://adai.washington.edu/marijuana/factsheets/aggression.htm

Urban Dictionary: bum rush: To run full speed into somebody and body slam them into a brick wall, chain link fence, or similar immovable object: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bum%20rush 

Obama Is Lying About The Keystone Pipeline

Shortly after the House of Representative passed a bill that approved the completion of the Keystone Pipeline, President Obama was asked to comment and he said this:

Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn't have an impact on U.S. gas prices.

Therefore, according to Obama, Canada merely wants to use us as a conduit to send their oil to every place other than the United States.  Additionally, it will not have an impact on our gasoline prices.   Both of these comments are bald-faced lies.

If the only intent was for Canada to sell its oil overseas, then why build a pipeline extending a total of 2,100+ miles from their western province of Alberta to eastern Texas and western Louisiana?  After all, a 2100 mile pipeline is both expensive to build and even more expensive to maintain; greatly adding to the per-gallon cost of the oil moving through it. They had a cheaper alternative. Were they to build a pipeline that was only 850 miles long from their oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta to their largest western seaport: Port Metro Vancouver.  Then, they could ship to some of the largest importers of oil in the world like China, Vietnam, South Korea, and Japan.

But, as the President knows, Canada views us as a friendly and reliable trading partner.  This is why they are already our largest importer of foreign oil; accounting for 37% of our imported oil and  helping us to reduce our dependence on potentially unfriendly sources like the Middle East and Venezuela. 

Then, there is the issue as to whether or not Keystone will lower gasoline prices.  Simple economics and the Law of Supply and Demand says yes.  If you haven't noticed, gasoline prices in the U.S. are now at 4-year lows; from prices at the pump that were, in some cases, over $4 a gallon, to today's average price of below $3 and still falling.  The reason for this is the fact that there is an oil glut; primarily due to increased oil production in this country resulting from fracking.  The additional oil from the Keystone will only add to that glut and, as such, further reduce the price of gasoline.

Reduced gasoline prices is the real reason behind Obama's blocking of this project.

He knows that lower prices will undermine his push on climate change measures.  Lower gasoline prices means that people will be tempted to drive more and, at the same time, be less tempted to buy a newer, more fuel efficient car; including electric cars.  Thus, carbon emissions will only go up, not down.

Throughout his Administration, President Obama has done everything possible to keep gasoline prices  as high as possible by limiting oil production in this country.  He's used his Department of the Interior to limit oil leases on federal lands and our coastlines.  He has attempted to stop drilling on private lands bt using the EPA to expand endangered species to include those on prominent oil drilling territories and to file lawsuits over fracking.   Believe me, his intended expansion of the Clean Waters Act to include non-navigable waters will also ultimately be used to restrict drilling and fracking. That's because water is essential to all oil drilling.  In conventional drilling it keeps the drill bits cool.  In the case of fracking, high pressure water and chemicals are used to fracture shale and release the imbedded oil (and/or gas).


References:

Keystone pipeline: Obama bashes project while in Myanmar: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/14/keystone-pipeline-obama-bashes-project-while-in-my/

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

Distance From Hardesty To Port Metro: https://www.google.com/search?q=distance+from+hardisty+to+port+metro&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Global Oil Glut Sends Prices Plunging - WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/articles/global-oil-glut-sends-prices-plunging-1413334648

Time to Process Oil Leases On Federal Lands: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Time-required-to-drill-1-sm.png

Oil Leases: Bush versus Obama: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-oil-production-up-but-on-whose-lands-2/

 EPA Backpedals on Fracking Contamination Lawsuits: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303404704577313741463447670

Inflation-Adjusted Gold Hits 5-Year Lows

Recently, gold hit $1,177 an ounce. When it did that, anyone who had bought gold in the last 5-years was losing money on their investment because $1,177 is a price that hasn't been seen since early 2010.

When you adjust the $1,177 in terms of the value of today's dollars, you literally have to go back to September/October of 2009 when gold was selling at around $1,061 an ounce; just to break even against inflation.  If that isn't enough to convince someone not to buy into all the  hype, then think about this.  Today, gold is selling at a 38% loss from its 2011 high of $1,904.

A lot of these gold bugs, who desperately want to sell you the loser gold that they are currently stuck with, are using all kinds of phony arguments to convince you that it is a great investment.

The typical claim is that it is protection against inflation.  This despite the fact that, over the last 5 years there has been about 8.5% inflation and gold has fallen on its tail; down 38%. Another is that gold is a protection against another stock market crash.  Well, today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is at record highs and all of 2008 market crash losses have been erased.  At 17,828, the DOW is now 35% higher than it was in 2007 at pre-crash highs.

Finally, don't buy into the hype about silver either.  Its doing even worse.  When gold hit that 5-year low, silver also saw a low of $15.56 an ounce, you literally have to go back 6 years to see silver at that low.  Also, silver is down 68% from its 2011 high of $49 an ounce.

References:

Inflation Calculator: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

CNBC: Interactive Silver Chart: http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/SIZ4/tab/2

The Phony Science Behind Obama's EPA Ozone Regulation

According to the President's head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy, we need to lower the current allowable ozone rates from 75 parts-per-billion (ppb) to at least 65-70 ppb, and eventually to 60 ppb.  Her primary argument for doing this is improved health; especially in children with asthma.  In a commentary that McCarthy wrote, that was published by CNN, she said this:

For our children, that means avoiding up to 1 million missed school days, thousands of cases of acute bronchitis, and nearly a million asthma attacks. Adults could avoid hundreds of emergency room visits for cardiovascular reasons, up to 180,000 missed work days, and 4 million days where people have to deal with pollution-related symptoms.

To further justify the EPA requirement, she added this:

Thousands of scientific studies (from renowned institutions like Harvard University, the University of North Carolina Medical School, and many others) tell us that cutting air pollution to meet ozone standards lowers the risk of asthma, permanent lung damage, cardiovascular harm, and premature death.

Now, there is no way that I or anyone else can factually prove that reducing ozone lowers the risk of permanent lung damage, cardiovascular disease, or premature deaths.  All of these health issues are the result of a number of other variables such as smoking, work environment, family histories, etc.  But, I can tell you one thing: Every year, Americans are living longer.

As to the theory that lowering ozone levels reduces the risk of asthma, especially in children, let me say this. From an emotional standpoint, it is always difficult to argue against any regulation that would help children, but please consider the following:

Instead of using anecdotal evidence from some government-sponsored Harvard study, I would prefer to use actual evidence from the Center for Disease Control (CDC); which, apparently, Gina McCarthy never heard of.  You see, the CDC collects physical data on all kinds of diseases.  In the period from 2006-2008, they found that 9% of children had prevalent asthma.  Then, in 2008, the EPA mandate of ozone levels of 75 ppb went into effect. Therefore, one would think that the risk of children getting asthma would have lessened.  However, 4 years later, in 2012, the CDC determined that the percentage of children with asthma actually went up to 9.3%.  Also, in 1996, the percent of children with asthma was only 6%. So, why is the rate of children with asthma so much higher?  This, despite a near 75% drop in ozone as this chart from the EPA shows:

Image link remove by EPA. I wonder why?

So, tell me. Where is the correlation between asthma and ozone? Are we once again being lied to by the Obama Administration and using junk science to establish more major impediments to business merely to make the liberal base of environmentalists happy? 

The proposed new regulation(s) on ozone is expected to cost our economy $3.4 trillion in economic output by 2040.  With, at the same time, a loss of 2.9 million jobs in the process.   Of course, the EPA claims that for every dollar spent in compliance, $3 in health benefits will be returned.  Obviously, then, we should see $10.2 trillion in health benefits by 2040.  To put that number into perspective, Americans spend about $2.8 trillion on health care each year.  So, we are now expected to believe that we will save nearly 4 years worth of all the current health care spending by 2040?  I doubt anyone who knows numbers would seriously think that is even possible.

References:

CNN: Gina McCarthy:  U.S. EPA: We need tougher ozone standards: http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/26/news/economy/epa-stronger-ozone-standard/

Americans Can Now Expect to Live Longer Than Ever | TIME: http://time.com/3481226/life-expectancy-record/

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

‘The most expensive regulation ever’  Obama rolls out a major EPA rule: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/epa-ozone-standard-113183.html

Current Asthma Prevalence --- United States, 2006--2008: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a18.htm

CDC: Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2012: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_258.pdf

June 2000: Childhood Asthma: In 1996, 4.4 million children, or 6 percent of the U.S. population under 18 years of age, had asthma: http://www.agingsociety.org/agingsociety/pdf/asthma.pdf

EPA: Ozone Season NOx Reductions: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/NBP_1.html

 

Jobless Claims Spiking...Should We Worry?

Back in September, I wrote a blog titled: Beware of Jobless Claims Below 300,000. In it, I showed that, historically, when claims fall below 300,000, a recession is almost sure to follow.

Well, interestingly enough, we just had a big spike in jobless claims which are now back above 300,000.  So, the question is: Is this jump signalling the possible start of a recession.  The reason I say this, is because it is rare to see such a big jump in layoffs before a big holiday like Thanksgiving.  Normally, employers do everything possible to avoid giving people notices at those time.  It can be a heartless thing to do.

With that in mind, please look at this chart from the people at Zero Hedge:

Now, look at the historical Jobless Claims from St. Louis Federal Reserve:

Click on chart to zoom in

Note, the similarity in the spike in claims just before the start of each recession.

This doesn't mean that a recession is necessarily imminent. Usually it takes a few weeks to develop, but if jobless claims continue to develop an upward trend, it may be that this latest number is the canary in the coal mine.

One last thing.  Normally, the claims number that follows a holiday will be low because (1) claims offices are only open a few days in that reporting period and (2) because less people are available during holidays to file claims.  Therefore, next week's jobless number should fall dramatically.  But, if not, we could be seeing the start of a new recession.

References:

Initial Jobless Claims Spikes Above 300k To 3-Month Highs, Biggest Miss In 11 Months: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-26/initial-jobless-claims-spikes-above-300k-3-month-highs-biggest-miss-11-months

FRED: 4-Week Moving Average of Initial Claims: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=IC4WSA,

Don't Believe The Hype Over The 3.9% Growth In GDP

Apparently, the economy -- as measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -- grew by an unexpected 3.9% in the third quarter.  Coupled with 4.6% in the second quarter, this is the best growth in back-to-back quarters in 10 years.  But, there is a serious problem with both of these numbers. The fact is, that the consumer spending is a lot weaker than those numbers would imply.

You see, about 70% of any GDP calculation comes from what you and I spend.  While this last quarter looks rather hot with a 3.9% growth rate, the consumer spending only grew by 2.2%.  In an even hotter second quarter at 4.6%, consumer spending only rose by 2.5%. Simply, consumer activity is tepid and that's not good.  It shows that lagging incomes, high rates of poverty, and higher prices for food and energy are taking a toll.

There is also another number that makes up the GDP and that indicates a lack of consumer spending: Imports.  We are a nation who is heavily dependent on imported goods.  Yet, last quarter they fell seven tenths of a percent.  Proving the demand for imported goods has also slowed.

This begs the question, if 70% of GDP is household spending and that was weak, where did all the growth come from.  Well, you can thank our war with ISIS.  Military spending jumped 16%;  and overall, federal spending jumped 9.9%.  Business spending, too, had a hefty impact; growing by 7.1%, but it is always heavier in the third quarter as manufacturers rev up production of goods prior to the holiday season. 

Personally, I think that all the business spending may be for naught.  Especially, if the consumer continues to lag behind.  It may just be the case that the consumer is the Grinch that stole this Christmas.

References:

U.S. Third-Quarter GDP Revised Up to 3.9% Growth: http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-third-quarter-gdp-revised-up-to-3-9-advance-1416922352

U.S. GDP Grew 4.6% In Second Quarter 2014, Up From Earlier Estimates: http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/09/26/u-s-gdp-grew-4-6-in-second-quarter-2014-up-from-earlier-estimates/

What Are the Components of GDP?: http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/f/GDP_Components.htm

New data shows Americans' incomes still stagnant after recession: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/us-usa-economy-poverty-idUSKBN0HB1LN20140916

If There’s No Inflation, Why Are Prices Up So Much?: http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if-theres-no-inflation-why-are-prices-up-so-much/

The Irresponsible Media, Black Leadership, And Even The White House Own The Ferguson Riots

When the Michael Brown shooting was first made public, we were told that an unarmed Black teen was shot in the back by a White police officer while holding his hands in the air in surrender.  The supposed reason that we were given for the shooting was that Michael Brown refused to move out of the middle of the street.  All of this was wrong and, if you think about it, made zero sense.  However, because of this irresponsible reporting, nights of rioting ensued. Blacks and sympathetic whites, all over the country, protested the shooting by holding their hands up in the air and shouting "Don't shoot". 

Also, the implied racism claim was further inflamed when Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP all descended on Ferguson, whipping up even more rage over the Brown shooting.  Beyond this, Obama's own Attorney General, Eric Holder, injected himself into the situation by launching a racial investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. That fact alone, solidified the belief in the minds of many Blacks that the shooting was racially motivated.  This too was irresponsible.

Lastly, President Obama, instead of reassuring the nation that the Grand Jury decision was correct, simply called for calm, while in split screen, rioting and flames were seen.

The President further fanned the flames by saying the anger was "understandable" for people who believe "the law is being applied in a discriminatory fashion".  Implying, of course, that the Grand Jury decision was indeed unfair.

So, all along, the stage was set for rioting; as if it would be somehow purposeful, but, long after the violence stops; and the media attention is gone; and people like the Obama, Eric Holder, and Al Sharpton have moved on, Ferguson will be left to fall into decay like so many other cities that fell victim to racial rioting in the past.  Blacks that remain in Ferguson are destined to live in a community that is poorer, and more crime ridden than it is today. Ironically, it will be the Black residents themselves, who will suffer the most for Michael Brown's death.

References:

Obama begs for calm as rioters set fires and attack police cars in Ferguson after grand jury refuses to indict police officer in Michael Brown case: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2848308/Obama-begs-calm-rioters-set-fires-attack-police-cars-Ferguson-grand-jury-refuses-indict-police-officer-Michael-Brown-case.html

Holder's Justice Department to Investigate Ferguson, Missouri, Police: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/justice-department-investigate-ferguson-missouri-police-n195271

Sharpton Calls Ferguson Decision 'An Absolute Blow' to Justice: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/ferguson-al-sharpton-react-grand-jury-decision-113157.html

Al Sharpton Announces Ferguson Protest Plans In 25 Cities: http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-agitator-al-sharpton-just-revealed-will-spread-protests-far-beyond-ferguson/