Government sponsored Riots?

Local

Sheriff: ‘I Was Sick To My Stomach’ After Being Told To Stand Down

WASHINGTON, USA - APRIL 27: Police retreat from the hulks of burned out cars in the middle of an intersection during riots in Baltimore, USA on April 27, 2015. Protests following the death of Freddie Gray from injuries suffered while in police custody have turned violent with people throwing debris at police and media and burning cars and businesses. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, USA – APRIL 27: Police retreat from the hulks of burned out cars in the middle of an intersection during riots in Baltimore, USA on April 27, 2015. Protests following the death of Freddie Gray from injuries suffered while in police custody have turned violent with people throwing debris at police and media and burning cars and businesses. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

NorrisDavis_200x200The Norris and Davis Show

BALTIMORE (CBS BALTIMORE) — A Maryland sheriff who traveled to Baltimore to help law enforcement stop Monday’s riots told 105.7 The Fan that he was stunned when officers alerted him of the orders to stand down.

Michael Lewis is the Sheriff in Wicomico County, and was also a Sergeant with the Maryland State Police. He joined Ed Norris and Steve Davis on Thursday to talk about the alleged controversial orders the police were given during the riots.

Lewis said it wasn’t his intention to come to Baltimore, a drive of about two hours, but he felt it was his duty to help.

“I hadn’t planned to go to Baltimore at all. I watched the events unfold Saturday night like we all did, and was very concerned about what I saw, and the the lack of response Saturday night,” he said. “I immediately rallied up the troops. We made sure our MRAP was prepared and ready. … We were assigned to assigned to protect Baltimore City Police headquarters, all of E. Fayette Street up to City Hall, to include City Hall. There wasn’t a whole lot of activity taking place at all. We could smell that putrid smell of burning tires and a city on fire when as we came into the city. Had lots of concerns like everyone else. We maintained our post all night long until we were relieved.”

But what shocked him the most, he said, was when city police told him not to confront and accost the rioters.

“I was sick to my stomach like everybody else. … This was urban warfare, no question about it. They were coming in absolutely beaten down. The [city officers] got out of their vehicles, thanked us profusely for being there, apologized to us for having to be there. They said we could have handled this, we were very capable of handling this, but we were told to stand down, repeatedly told to stand down,” he said. “I had never heard that order come from anyone — we went right out to our posts as soon as we got there, so I never heard the mayor say that. But repeatedly these guys, and there were many high-ranking officials from the Baltimore City Police Department … and these guys told me they were essentially neutered from the start. They were spayed from the start. They were told to stand down, you will not take any action, let them destroy property. I couldn’t believe it, I’m a 31-year veteran of law enforcement. … I had never heard anything like this before in my life and these guys obviously aren’t gonna speak out and the more I thought about this, … I had to say a few things. I apologize if I’ve upset people, but I believe in saying it like it is.”

Lewis said though he didn’t hear the order to stand down come from the mayor, he did hear it from police officials.

“I heard it myself over the Baltimore City police radio that I had tethered to my body-armor vest, I heard it repeatedly. ‘Stand down, stand down, stand down! Back up, back up, retreat, retreat!’ I couldn’t believe those words. Those are words I’ve never heard in my law enforcement vocabulary,” he said. “Baltimore City police, all law enforcement agencies are very capable of handling that city. They’re trained to handle that city. These guys were hearing words that had never been echoed in their lives, in their careers.”

Lewis claims after the riots many officers told him they were done being cops in the city and how heartbroken they are that they were not allowed to defend their city and stop businesses from burning.

Leading conservative/libertarian declares “Pray that Hillary gets nominated. She is our best hope

By Wayne Allyn Root

WayneAllynRoot_Head copy

If you’re a conservative, Libertarian, limited government Constitutionalist or patriot, pray for Hillary. She’s our best hope for 2016. I love Hillary Clinton. I’m rooting for Hillary. She is a gift from heaven. I pray for her nomination every morning.

No, I’m not a fan of Hillary. No, I don’t support her policies. No, I don’t want her as president. But I sure want her as the Democratic nominee. She is “the gift that keeps on giving.” Hillary has so much baggage her campaign should be sponsored by Samsonite.

If the GOP has any hope of winning in 2016, Hillary has to be the nominee. Before I get to the scandals, let’s start with the obvious. Hillary is old news, over the hill, tired, worn out, spoiled milk. She is just going through the motions. She doesn’t even look or sound like she cares. Hillary herself can’t think of a single compelling reason for why she should be president. She’s just been waiting around a long time. And she’s a woman. That’s it. That’s her reason.

She’s so old and entitled that the guy who managed her campaign for U.S. Senate, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, refuses to endorse her for president. He basically just said what I said. She’s old news. She has no new ideas. She offers America nothing new. That’s one of her closest allies speaking.

Every candidate needs a brand. Hillary’s brand is “Entitlement. It’s my time. Oh, and I’m a female.” Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

If Hillary is the nominee, she can be destroyed and branded with so many scandals, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Destroy her with her own words, “What difference does it make?” Those were her words in front of a congressional committee about the Benghazi tragedy. Four heroes were murdered. She participated in a coverup and all she could think to say was, “What difference does it make?” Meaning, those young heroes are all dead, so who cares?

Her own TV ads in 2008 bragged about her decision-making abilities at 2 a.m. when the important call comes in. Well, we now know what she said when that call came in during the attack on Benghazi. She heard our heroes were about to be murdered and she said, “What difference does it make?” Then, she went back to sleep. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

I suggest TV ad campaigns featuring the parents of those four men abandoned by Hillary and Barack Obama and left to die at the hands of a radical Muslim mob, who clearly were supplied with their weapons by … Hillary and Obama. Let’s ask the parents how they feel about Hillary. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

Is she scared of her role in Benghazi? Well, she erased 32,000 emails. She should be called “Tricky Dicky Hillary.” She was a lawyer on the committee investigating Richard Nixon’s scandals. She knew all about the erased Nixon audiotapes. She learned well. That must be where she got the idea to delete 32,000 emails and wipe the server clean. Like Nixon, she decided what we the people needed to know. Then she pressed “delete.” Run those TV ads 24 hours a day. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.Hillary-Allah

What difference did she make as secretary of state? Name her accomplishments? The world is in flames, the Middle East melted down, ISIS was born, Iran laughed in our face while building a nuclear program — all under her leadership. The world is a far more dangerous place. What difference did she make? Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

“We were dead broke when we left the White House.” There’s another great line. Let’s play it 24 hours a day. Maybe that’s why the Clintons stole the china and furniture on the way out the door. Maybe that’s why $6 billion went missing at the State Department under her watch. When you’re broke, $6 billion can make a big difference. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

Hillary says she is a “woman of the people.” She’s one of us. But she hasn’t driven a car since 1996. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

Hillary is all about the middle class. She has decided to make the middle class the centerpiece of her campaign for president. But “Mrs. Middle Class” demands $300,000 for a one-hour speech and a Gulfstream private jet to take her there and back.

She also gets the presidential suite at a five-star hotel, or she won’t show up. No Marriotts, Hiltons or Holiday Inns for Hillary. Run those facts 24 hours a day. Let’s see how middle-class women respond to her list of demands. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

Hillary is all about honesty and transparency. But it turns out she bought 2 million fake Facebook fans. I guess those are the things you have to do when you ask middle-class college kids paying obscene tuition to pay for your $300,000 speeches and private jets. It must be hard to find real fans! Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

But I saved the best for last: The Clinton Foundation. The Clintons have raised more than $2 billion dollars in donations from the wealthiest people, companies and foreign governments in the world. She’s not “conflicted.” Hillary is bought and paid for. If she wins the presidency, she should wear pantsuits custom designed with patches from corporate sponsors. You know, like NASCAR. She should have Penske and Valvoline patches on her pantsuits. The White House should say: “America’s House, Brought to you by the government of Saudi Arabia.”

Hillary says she fights for the rights of women. Yet she accepts hundreds of millions in donations from Muslim governments that stone women, make them hide behind veils, don’t allow them to drive without a man in the car, don’t allow them to be educated, and arrest and whip them (occasionally even execute them) for being the victims of rape. She could be the biggest hypocrite in the history of politics.hillary vicious

Here’s a great line for TV commercials: “When a Muslim country gives a $10 million check to The Clinton Foundation, then stones a woman, what does Hillary say? ‘Thank you!’” Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

She says she fights for the rights of gays. She tweeted her horror at the new Indiana law protecting religious freedom. But she gladly accepted multimillion-dollar checks from Muslim governments that stone gays and drop them off roofs of buildings. This is the biggest fraud and hypocrite in the history of world politics. Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

Remember Hillary’s TV commercial about that important phone call at 2 a.m.? We need to run TV ads 24 hours a day asking, “When that call comes in at 2 a.m. and it involves one of those countries that gave millions to the Clinton Foundation, do you trust Hillary Clinton to make the decision that is best for America, for your interests, for your children? Hillary Clinton: bought and paid for by foreign governments.” Pray this is the Democratic nominee.

And if you’re a Democrat, you’d better start praying that Hillary is destroyed before she wins the nomination — and early enough that there is time to find and vet a credible replacement. This woman is a ticking time bomb. It’s not a matter of if, but only a matter of when, she implodes or some scandal comes rushing to the surface to blow her campaign to tatters. Maybe it’ll be Benghazi. Or the 32,000 deleted emails. Or maybe it’s the Clinton Foundation. Or maybe it’s her chief of staff and constant woman at her side, Huma Abedin. That story smells worse than all the others.

But I know one thing: Hillary is the most flawed candidate in the history of politics. And I’m praying on bended knees that Hillary gets the nomination.

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. See you next week. God bless America.

FRANKLIN GRAHAM MAKES A CONVINCING CASE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY

FRANKLIN GRAHAM MAKES A CONVINCING CASE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY

 

Christian evangelist Franklin Graham is making the case against Barack Obama’s presidency better than any politician has.

Last week, Rudy Giuliani landed a glancing blow when he said he didn’t think President Obama really loves America.

Tuesday, in fewer than one hundred words posted on his Facebook page, Graham laid bare the moral and political destruction that has enveloped the country in the last six years.

Graham focused on Obama’s actions, rather than what he might think or believe.

“Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has taken a lot of heat from the media for his remark that he’s not sure if President Obama really loves America,” Graham’s post began.

“I don’t know if that’s true or not, but…” Graham wrote before launching into this concise and devastating critique of the president’s actions:

“I do know that the president (1) defends Islam and (2) chastises Christians, (3) rebukes our allies and (4) befriends our enemies, and (5) fully supports gay marriages and (6)abortion but (7) denies the religious freedoms of those who don’t agree.” (Numbers added in bold for emphasis.)

Seven specific actions undertaken by the president, spelled out in 35 simple words.

Graham then synopsized where he believes we stand as a country today in another 20 words:

“Our nation is ridiculed abroad and morally crumbling within. We are in trouble. We have turned our back on God.”

Graham has demonstrated what the best speechwriters have long known, but politicians often forget.

When it comes to effective communications, there is no tool more powerful than simplicity.

RUDY…RUDY…RUDY!

Pepsi 400

RUDY…RUDY…RUDY!

By Mario Murillo

Part one:  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Rudy Giuliani said that Obama does not love America.  Then the firestorm began.   Press secretary Josh Earnest said “I can tell you that it’s sad to see when somebody who has attained a certain stature and even admiration tarnishes that legacy so thoroughly.”

Who is tarnishing their legacy Josh?  You are Obama’s press secretary which right now is the American equivalent of Baghdad Bob. 

No one can escape that fact that Obama does not love America.   No one put it better than Pastor Robert Jeffress.  He quoted Obama:  “I want to fundamentally change America.”   Jeffress said “can you imagine a man saying to his fiancée “I want to fundamentally change you”?

Josh and his ilk are yanking that moment out of the Wizard of OZ saying to all of America “Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful OZ and then says “pay no that man behind the curtain.”

 We are not supposed to look at the man behind the Hope and Change curtain?   Do not arouse the wrath of the man of smoke, mirrors, hollow promises and deception on a scale never seen before?

We are supposed to believe he loves America.  We are supposed to be vilified if we say he doesn’t?   No one has said louder and clearer than Obama himself.  His contempt for Christians, Jews, Conservatives, and anyone else who opposes him is well documented.

Part two: Nobody said it better than Dorothy…”if you were really great and powerful, you would keep your promises.”

 He never got you the job he promised.  He never brought the Arab spring he promised.  He never defended and protected the Constitution like he promised.  He never made our allies loves us as he promised.  He never did anything he promised except to “fundamentally change America” into a weaker and more divided nation than when he took office.

Obama loves us?  He spies on those he loves?  He uses the IRS as an attack dog on those he loves?   He goes to bed instead of saving those in Benghazi he loves?   He relentlessly refuses to protect us from our enemies because he loves us?   He refuses to admit that there is a war against us because he loves us?

 Part three:  I was spontaneously chanting Rudy, Rudy, Rudy!   I have zero concern for Rudy Giuliani’s legacy.  His true love for the City of New York cannot be questioned.  The heroic way he held that city together after 911 will resound in history.

He applied the same matter of fact courage in stating the obvious about this president.   Not only did he state the obvious, he was kinder and gentler than he could have been.  Rudy was well within the mark.  He tapped the nail on the head.  He understated the single most glaring fact about this president.   The question is not “does Obama love America”, the real question is “how much does actually he hate it?”

Now watch this amazing video of Rudy Giuliani

Communist Party USA Chairman Vows Cooperation With Democratic Party

vows

Communist Party USA Chairman Vows Cooperation With Democratic Party

The chairman of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA has penned a 2,023-word manifesto making the critical point that American Communists are eager to work with the Democratic Party to advance the modern communist agenda and achieve communist goals.

Communist Party chairman John Bachtell published his essay last week at People’s World, a “daily news website of, for and by the 99% and the direct descendant of the Daily Worker.”

“[L]abor and other key social forces are not about to leave the Democratic Party anytime soon,” Bachtell promised. “They still see Democrats as the most realistic electoral vehicle” to fight against perceived class enemies.

Bachtell, 58, is playing the long political game and he has a strategy, he said.

“First, we are part of building the broadest anti-ultra right alliance possible, uniting the widest array of class (including a section of monopoly), social and democratic forces. This necessarily means working with the Democratic Party,” the communist leader explained.

“Second, our objective is not to build the Democratic Party. At this stage we are about building the broad people’s movement led by labor that utilizes the vehicle of the Democratic Party to advance its agenda,” Bachtell further expounded. “We are about building the movements around the issues roiling wide sections of people that can help shape election contours and debates.”

“[W]e are for building movements in the electoral arena and see engagement in the electoral arena and democratic governance as a vital means to further build movements,” Bachtell also said.

To that end, he claimed, “thousands of trade unionists have been elected” at municipal and local levels of American government. Bachtell did not note a party affiliation of these elected leaders.

The rest of Bachtell’s declaration is mostly a somewhat modernized version of the same, garden-variety communist drivel communists have been spouting since roughly 1840.

Communists and other leftists have experienced “disillusionment with the Democratic Party” because of its “deep connections to Wall Street.” He is still mad at President Bill Clinton for NAFTA and welfare reform.

He’s mad at everyone about an increased number of private schools.

Republicans are an embodiment of caricatured evil for Bachtell.

“While the Republican Party is led by the most reactionary sections of Wall Street capital including the energy extractive sector and military industrial complex, it also consists of extreme right-wing elements including the Tea Party, white supremacists, social conservatives, right-wing evangelicals, climate deniers, anti-reproductive rights groups, etc.,” the communist leader writes.

Bachtell possesses a bachelor’s degree from Antioch College, an obscure, private hothouse of leftism that went defunct in 2008 and was resurrected in 2011 as an unaccredited, private work college.

AL SHARPTON DODGES RACISM DEBATE AT OXFORD

AL SHARPTON DODGES RACISM DEBATE AT OXFORD UNION, WILL DELIVER PREPARED SPEECH

This Friday, the Oxford Union in London will hold a debate about race relations in the United States. MSNBC host Al Sharpton accepted an invitation to the event, but after confirming he would be one of the participants to propose the motion that the United States is “institutionally racist,” he did an about face, shocking his esteemed hosts.

Sharpton was supposed to defend his proposition along with Black Panther leader Aaron Dixon and liberal blogger Mychal Denzel Smith, while SiriusXM host, Breitbart News, and Fox News Contributor David Webb; conservative commentator Joe R. Hicks; and BBC radio host Charlie Wolf would oppose the motion in a structured Oxford-style debate.

wolf-web-hicks

The Oxford Union has committed to continue with the debate, which will be held this Friday, January 23rd. The debate details are on their website at oxford-union.org.

Sources have indicated that Sharpton, who is an informal adviser to both President Obama and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, has asked Oxford for an opportunity to speak but not debate the counter argument. “He wants to control the event, because he won’t debate the facts and the real issues including how his own conduct impacts race relations in the U.S.,” stated Webb. “He doesn’t want to be exposed for what he really is – a shakedown artist and racial coward. After years of conning people into giving him money by fanning the flames of racism, he’s just too afraid to have a civil, fact-based conversation about the issues of race in America.”

Oxford will allow Sharpton to speak for 20 minutes before the debate but will also have to answer questions from the audience, Webb, Hicks, and Wolf. The Oxford union, to its credit, is attempting to keep its history of fair debate intact. Webb was assured by the Oxford Union president Lisa Wehden that the opposing side will have an opportunity to ask questions of the Sharpton following his structured remarks. “It would be wrong to allow Sharpton to get away with just his usual thin, inflammatory rhetoric when this is supposed to be a substantive discussion,” said Webb.

Sharpton had a rough year in 2014, with criticism coming from all sides. Most recently, Sharpton’s comments following the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases came under fire for creating a racially charged environment in New York and elsewhere that has pundits and citizens have alleged led to more violence against police across America. The New York Times investigated the long-rumored issue of tax evasion, claiming that Sharpton owes more than $4 million in back taxes. And, while Sharpton railed against law enforcement, The Smoking Gun reported that he was a paid FBI snitch in the 1980s.

The debate will be taped and aired on David Webb’s SiriusXM Patriot radio show Monday, January 26 at 9PM Eastern time. Additional coverage by Breitbart News, Fox News Network, and worldwide media is expected. The Oxford Union YouTube channel will have the full debate following its conclusion.

The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds

The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds

‘Counter-bias’ rooted in concerns over social and legal consequences

Despite national media fixation on white-on-black police shootings, a new study finds “significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned.” (Associated Press) 
 THE REAL RACIAL BIAS: COPS MORE WILLING TO SHOOT WHITES THAN BLACKS, RESEARCH FINDS
Published: January 9, 2015
 SOURCE: WASHINGTON TIMES

It’s widely assumed that white police officers are more likely to shoot black suspects as a result of racial bias, but recent research suggests the opposite is true.

An innovative study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology found that participants in realistic simulations felt more threatened by black suspects yet took longer to pull the trigger on black men than on white or Hispanic men.

“This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group,” said the paper, which went practically unnoticed when it was published online on May 22, but took on new significance in the wake of a series of high-profile police-involved shootings involving black victims over the summer.

The results back up what one of the researchers, University of Missouri-St. Louis professor David Klinger, has found after independently interviewing more than 300 police officers: While they don’t want to shoot anybody, they really don’t want to shoot black suspects.

“Across these 300 interviews, I have multiple officers telling me that they didn’t shoot only because the suspect was black or the suspect was a woman, or something that would not be consistent with this narrative of cops out there running and gunning,” said Mr. Klinger, a former cop and author of “Into the Kill Zone: A Cop’s Eye View of Deadly Force” (2006).

“When it comes to the issue of race, I’ve never had a single officer tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was white.’ I’ve had multiple officers tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was black,’ ” Mr. Klinger said. “And this is 10, even 20 years ago. Officers are alert to the fact that if they shoot a black individual, the odds of social outcry are far greater than if they shoot a white individual.”

In fact, he said, officers involved in shootings have told him that they were actually relieved that the person they shot was white, not black.safe_image

“The second things is, I’ve had multiple officers tell me they were worried in the wake of a shooting because they shot a black person, and I’ve had multiple officers tell me that they were glad that the person they shot was white,” Mr. Klinger said. “Because then they knew they weren’t going to have to be subject to the racial harangue.”

The interviews, which he conducted for a book he’s planning to finish this year, run directly counter to the prevailing view pushed by social justice groups, politicians and others: that shooting victims such as 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson were victims at least in part of racial discrimination against blacks among cops.

“Police officers — at least the ones I interviewed — are very sensitive to the race issue, but not in the way this popular narrative is running, i.e., cops are out there trying to find young black men who don’t have guns so they can shoot them down like dogs in the street,” Mr. Klinger said. “That just isn’t anything I’ve found in any of the research that I’ve done.”

The study, “Racial and ethnic bias in decisions to shoot seen through a stronger lens: experimental results from high-fidelity laboratory simulations,” was conducted by Mr. Klinger and Washington State University assistant research professor Lois James and criminal justice and criminology professor Bryan Vila.

For their research, the authors used a pioneering WSU simulation involving full-size, high-definition video instead of photos and handguns modified to shoot infrared beams instead of the “shoot” buttons typically used in deadly-force studies.

About a third of the scenarios in the study were “no shoot” situations in which perpetrators of different races held cellphones or wallets, while the rest were “shoot” situations in which suspects were armed with knives or guns.

The study found that the 48 participants waited longest before firing on black suspects in “shoot” scenarios, even though the participants exhibited “stronger threat responses” when facing black suspects than with white or Hispanic suspects.RACISM

Eighty-five percent of the participants were white, and none was a police officer. At the same time, a 2013 study led by Ms. James using active police, military and the general public found the same phenomenon: All three groups took longer to shoot black suspects, and participants were also more likely to fire on unarmed whites and Hispanics than blacks.

“In other words, there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned,” the 2013 study said, according to WSU News.

The findings challenge not only popular assumptions but also previous social science research suggesting that whites, including police officers, have an “implicit bias” against blacks. The drawback with such implicit-bias studies is that they use the push-button model and less realistic scenarios, said Mr. Klinger.

“That’s important research. It’s good research,” Mr. Klinger said. “The problem is it bears absolutely no relationship with actual shooting events. And people are not reading all the caveats that the authors put into the article saying, ‘This is not real life, this is a laboratory, we don’t know about external validity,’ and so on.”

So why are blacks shot more often by police? While the FBI’s national database has been widely criticized as incomplete, data compiled by Mr. Klinger in St. Louis over the past decade shows that 90 percent of police shootings involve blacks, even though they only make up 49 percent of the city’s population.

At the same time, he said, that figure is commensurate with the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime. Roughly 90 percent of those killed each year in St. Louis are black, and 90 percent of them are shot by other blacks, he said.

Lying

What’s more, he said, black SWAT officers make up about one-third of the St. Louis force — and they commit on average about one-third of the shootings each year.

“And this is consistent with every other study that’s ever been done,” said Mr. Klinger, who, as a rookie officer in Los Angeles, fatally shot a black man armed with a knife who had stabbed his partner, Dennis Azevedo, in the chest.

“Once you start looking at levels of violence, levels of threat, blacks are not shot in manners that are disproportionate to their involvement in illegal activity,” he said. “And it doesn’t matter if the cop is black, white or Hispanic, police officers presented with deadly threats use deadly force. Period, paragraph, end of story.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe/?page=2#ixzz3P16eH0eT
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter