AG William Barr Constitution Day Speech – Transcript…


Last night U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr delivered a speech in celebration of constitution day to an audience at Hillsdale College. Here’s the transcript:

[VIA DOJ] –  I am pleased to be at this Hillsdale College celebration of Constitution Day.  Sadly, many colleges these days don’t even teach the Constitution, much less celebrate it.  But at Hillsdale, you recognize that the principles of the Founding are as relevant today as ever—and vital to the success of our free society.  I appreciate your observance of this important day and all you do for civic education in the United States.

When many people think about the virtues of our Constitution, they first mention the Bill of Rights.  That makes sense.  The great guarantees of the Bill of Rights—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms, just to name the first few—are critical safeguards of liberty.  But as President Reagan used to remind people, the Soviet Union had a constitution too, and it even included some lofty-sounding rights.  Ultimately, however, those promises were just empty words, because there was no rule of law to enforce them.

 

The rule of law is the lynchpin of American freedom.  And the critical guarantee of the rule of law comes from the Constitution’s structure of separated powers.  The Framers recognized that by dividing the legislative, executive, and judicial powers— each significant, but each limited—they would minimize the risk of any form of tyranny.  That is the real genius of the Constitution, and it is ultimately more important to securing liberty than the Bill of Rights.  After all, the Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the original Constitution, which the Framers did not think needed an express enumeration of rights.

I want to focus today on the power that the Constitution allocates to the Executive, particularly in the area of criminal justice.  The Supreme Court has correctly held that, under Article II of the Constitution, the Executive has virtually unchecked discretion to decide whether to prosecute individuals for suspected federal crimes.  The only significant limitation on that discretion comes from other provisions of the Constitution.  Thus, for example, a United States Attorney could not decide to prosecute only people of a particular race or religion.  But aside from that limitation — which thankfully has remained a true hypothetical at the Department of Justice — the Executive has broad discretion to decide whether to bring criminal prosecutions in particular cases.

The key question, then, is how the Executive should exercise its prosecutorial discretion.  Eighty years ago this spring, one of my predecessors in this job —then-Attorney General Robert Jackson — gave a famous speech to a conference of United States Attorneys in which he described the proper role and qualities of federal prosecutors.  (By the way, Jackson was one of several former Attorneys General who went on become a Supreme Court Justice.  But I am one of only two former Attorneys General who went on to become Attorney General again.)

Much has changed in the eight decades since Justice Jackson’s remarks.  But he was a man of uncommon wisdom, and it is appropriate to consider his views in the modern era.

The criminal process is a juggernaut.  That was true then and it is true today.  Once the criminal process starts rolling, it is very difficult to slow it down or knock it off course.  And that means federal prosecutors possess tremendous power — power that is necessary to enforce our laws and punish wrongdoing, but power that, like any power, carries inherent potential for abuse or misuse.

Justice Jackson recognized this.  As he put it, “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.”  Prosecutors have the power to investigate people and interview their friends, and they can do so on the basis of mere suspicion of general wrongdoing.  People facing federal investigations incur ruinous legal costs and often see their lives reduced to rubble before a charge is even filed.  Justice Jackson was not exaggerating when he said that “While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”

The power to, as he called it, “strike at citizens, not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself” must be carefully calibrated and closely supervised.  Left unchecked, it has the potential to inflict far more harm than it prevents.

1. Political Supervision

The most basic check on prosecutorial power is politics.  It is counter-intuitive to say that, as we rightly strive to maintain an apolitical system of criminal justice.  But political accountability—politics—is what ultimately ensures our system does its work fairly and with proper recognition of the many interests and values at stake.  Government power completely divorced from politics is tyranny.

Justice Jackson understood this.  As he explained, presidential appointment and senate confirmation of U.S. Attorneys and senior DOJ officials is what legitimizes their exercises of the sovereign’s power.  You are “required to win an expression of confidence in your character by both the legislative and the executive branches of the government before assuming the responsibilities of a federal prosecutor.”

Yet in the decades since Justice Jackson’s remarks, it has become fashionable to argue that prosecutorial decisions are legitimate only when they are made by the lowest-level line prosecutor handling any given case.  Ironically, some of those same critics see no problem in campaigning for highly political, elected District Attorneys to remake state and local prosecutorial offices in their preferred progressive image, which often involves overriding the considered judgment of career prosecutors and police officers.  But aside from hypocrisy, the notion that line prosecutors should make the final decisions within the Department of Justice is completely wrong and it is antithetical to the basic values underlying our system.

The Justice Department is not a praetorian guard that watches over society impervious to the ebbs and flows of politics.  It is an agency within the Executive Branch of a democratic republic — a form of government where the power of the state is ultimately reposed in the people acting through their elected president and elected representatives.

The men and women who have ultimate authority in the Justice Department are thus the ones on whom our elected officials have conferred that responsibility — by presidential appointment and senate confirmation.  That blessing by the two political branches of government gives these officials democratic legitimacy that career officials simply do not possess.

The same process that produces these officials also holds them accountable.  The elected President can fire senior DOJ officials at will and the elected Congress can summon them to explain their decisions to the people’s representatives and to the public.  And because these officials have the imprimatur of both the President and Congress, they also have the stature to resist these political pressures when necessary.  They can take the heat for what the Justice Department does or doesn’t do.

Line prosecutors, by contrast, are generally part of the permanent bureaucracy.  They do not have the political legitimacy to be the public face of tough decisions and they lack the political buy-in necessary to publicly defend those decisions.  Nor can the public and its representatives hold civil servants accountable in the same way as appointed officials.  Indeed, the public’s only tool to hold the government accountable is an election — and the bureaucracy is neither elected nor easily replaced by those who are.

Moreover, because these officials are installed by the democratic process, they are most equipped to make the complex judgment calls concerning how we should wield our prosecutorial power.  As Justice Scalia observed in perhaps his most admired judicial opinion, his dissent in Morrison v. Olson: “Almost all investigative and prosecutorial decisions—including the ultimate decision whether, after a technical violation of the law has been found, prosecution is warranted—involve the balancing of innumerable legal and practical considerations.”

And those considerations do need to be balanced in each and every case.  As Justice Scalia also pointed out, it is nice to say “Fiat justitia, ruat coelum. Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.”  But it does not comport with reality.  It would do far more harm than good to abandon all perspective and proportion in an attempt to ensure that every technical violation of criminal law by every person is tracked down, investigated, and prosecuted to the Nth degree.

Our system works best when leavened by judgment, discretion, proportionality, and consideration of alternative sanctions — all the things that supervisors provide.  Cases must be supervised by someone who does not have a narrow focus, but who is broad gauged and pursuing a general agenda.  And that person need not be a prosecutor, but someone who can balance the importance of vigorous prosecution with other competing values.

In short, the Attorney General, senior DOJ officials, and U.S. Attorneys are indeed political.  But they are political in a good and necessary sense.

Indeed, aside from the importance of not fully decoupling law enforcement from the constraining and moderating forces of politics, devolving all authority down to the most junior officials does not even make sense as a matter of basic management.  Name one successful organization where the lowest level employees’ decisions are deemed sacrosanct.  There aren’t any.  Letting the most junior members set the agenda might be a good philosophy for a Montessori preschool, but it’s no way to run a federal agency.  Good leaders at the Justice Department—as at any organization—need to trust and support their subordinates.  But that does not mean blindly deferring to whatever those subordinates want to do.

This is what Presidents, the Congress, and the public expect.  When something goes wrong at the Department of Justice, the buck stops at the top.  28 U.S.C. § 509 could not be plainer:  “All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General.”

And because I am ultimately accountable for every decision the Department makes, I have an obligation to ensure we make the correct ones.  The Attorney General, the Assistant Attorneys General, and the U.S. Attorneys are not figureheads selected for their good looks and profound eloquence.

They are supervisors.  Their job is to supervise.   Anything less is an abdication.

Active engagement in our cases by senior officials is also essential to the rule of law.  The essence of the rule of law is that whatever rule you apply in one case must be the same rule you would apply to similar cases.  Treating each person equally before the law includes how the Department enforces the law.

We should not prosecute someone for wire fraud in Manhattan using a legal theory we would not equally pursue in Madison or in Montgomery, or allow prosecutors in one division to bring charges using a theory that a group of prosecutors in the division down the hall would not deploy against someone who engaged in indistinguishable conduct.

We must strive for consistency.  And that is yet another reason why centralized senior leadership exists—to harmonize the disparate views of our many prosecutors into a consistent policy for the Department.  As Justice Jackson explained, “we must proceed in all districts with that uniformity of policy which is necessary to the prestige of federal law.”

2. Detachment in Prosecutions

All the supervision in the world will not be enough, though, without a strong culture across the Department of fairness and commitment to even-handed justice.  This is what Justice Jackson described as “the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor.”  In his memorable turn of phrase, even when “the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.”

We want our prosecutors to be aggressive and tenacious in their pursuit of justice, but we also want to ensure that justice is ultimately administered dispassionately.

We are all human.  Like any person, a prosecutor can become overly invested in a particular goal.  Prosecutors who devote months or years of their lives to investigating a particular target may become deeply invested in their case and assured of the rightness of their cause.

When a prosecution becomes “your prosecution”—particularly if the investigation is highly public, or has been acrimonious, or if you are confident early on that the target committed serious crimes—there is always a temptation to will a prosecution into existence even when the facts, the law, or the fair-handed administration of justice do not support bringing charges.

This risk is inevitable and cannot be avoided simply by — as we certainly strive to do — hiring as prosecutors only moral people with righteous motivations.  I am reminded of a passage by C.S. Lewis:

It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.

Even the most well-meaning people can do great damage if they lose perspective.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

That is yet another reason that having layers of supervision is so important.  Individual prosecutors can sometimes become headhunters, consumed with taking down their target.  Subjecting their decisions to review by detached supervisors ensures the involvement of dispassionate decision-makers in the process.

This was of course the central problem with the independent-counsel statute that Justice Scalia criticized in Morrison v. Olson.  Indeed, creating an unaccountable headhunter was not some unfortunate byproduct of that statute; it was the stated purpose of that statute.  That was what Justice Scalia meant by his famous line, “this wolf comes as a wolf.”  As he went on to explain:  “How frightening it must be to have your own independent counsel and staff appointed, with nothing else to do but to investigate you until investigation is no longer worthwhile—with whether it is worthwhile not depending upon what such judgments usually hinge on, competing responsibilities.  And to have that counsel and staff decide, with no basis for comparison, whether what you have done is bad enough, willful enough, and provable enough, to warrant an indictment.  How admirable the constitutional system that provides the means to avoid such a distortion.  And how unfortunate the judicial decision that has permitted it.”

Justice Jackson understood this too.  As he explained in his speech:  “If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”  Any erosion in prosecutorial detachment is extraordinarily perilous.  For, “it is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”

  • Advocate Just and Reasonable Legal Positions

In exercising our prosecutorial discretion, one area in which I think the Department of Justice has some work to do is recalibrating how we interpret criminal statutes.

In recent years, the Justice Department has sometimes acted more like a trade association for federal prosecutors than the administrator of a fair system of justice based on clear and sensible legal rules.  In case after case, we have advanced and defended hyper-aggressive extensions of the criminal law.  This is wrong and we must stop doing it.

The rule of law requires that the law be clear, that it be communicated to the public, and that we respect its limits.  We are the Department of Justice, not the Department of Prosecution.

We should want a fair system with clear rules that the people can understand.  It does not serve the ends of justice to advocate for fuzzy and manipulable criminal prohibitions that maximize our options as prosecutors.  Preventing that sort of pro-prosecutor uncertainty is what the ancient rule of lenity is all about.  That rule should likewise inform how we at the Justice Department think about the criminal law.

Advocating for clear and defined prohibitions will sometimes mean we cannot bring charges against someone whom we believe engaged in questionable conduct.  But that is what it means to have a government of laws and not of men.  We cannot let our desire to prosecute “bad” people turn us into the functional equivalent of the mad Emperor Caligula, who inscribed criminal laws in tiny script atop a tall pillar where nobody could see them.

To be clear, what I am describing is not the Al Capone situation — where you have someone who committed countless crimes and you decide to prosecute him for only the clearest violation that carries a sufficient penalty.  I am talking about taking vague statutory language and then applying it to a criminal target in a novel way that is, at a minimum, hardly the clear consequence of the statutory text.

This is inherently unfair because criminal prosecutions are backward-looking.  We charge people with crimes based on past conduct.  If it was unknown or even unclear that the conduct was illegal when the person engaged in it, that raises real questions about whether it is fair to prosecute the person criminally for it.

Examples of the Department defending these sorts of extreme positions are unfortunately numerous, as are rejections of our novel arguments by the Supreme Court.  These include arguments as varied as the Department insisting that a Philadelphia woman violated the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act — which implemented the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction — by putting chemicals on her neighbor’s doorknob as part of an acrimonious love triangle involving the woman’s husband, which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected in Bond v. United States … to arguing that a fisherman violated the “anti-shredding” provision in Sarbanes-Oxley when he threw undersized grouper over the side of his boat, which the Supreme Court rejected in Yates v. United States … to arguing that aides to the Governor of New Jersey fraudulently “obtained property” from the government when they realigned the lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create a traffic jam, which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected earlier this year in Kelly v. United States.   There are other examples, but these illustrate the point.

Taking a capacious approach to criminal law is not only unfair to criminal defendants and bad for the Justice Department’s track record at the Supreme Court, it is corrosive to our political system.  If criminal statutes are endlessly manipulable, then everything becomes a potential crime.  Rather than watch policy experts debate the merits or demerits of a particular policy choice, we are nowadays treated to ad naseum speculation by legal pundits — often former prosecutors themselves — that some action by the President, a senior official, or a member of congress constitutes a federal felony under this or that vague federal criminal statute.

This criminalization of politics is not healthy.  The criminal law is supposed to be reserved for the most egregious misconduct — conduct so bad that our society has decided it requires serious punishment, up to and including being locked away in a cage.  These tools are not built to resolve political disputes and it would be a decidedly bad development for us to go the way of third world nations where new administrations routinely prosecute their predecessors for various ill-defined crimes against the state.  The political winners ritually prosecuting the political losers is not the stuff of a mature democracy.

The Justice Department abets this culture of criminalization when we are not disciplined about what charges we will bring and what legal theories we will bless.  Rather than root out true crimes — while leaving ethically dubious conduct to the voters — our prosecutors have all too often inserted themselves into the political process based on the flimsiest of legal theories.  We have seen this time and again, with prosecutors bringing ill-conceived charges against prominent political figures, or launching debilitating investigations that thrust the Justice Department into the middle of the political process and preempt the ability of the people to decide.

This criminalization of politics will only worsen until we change the culture of concocting new legal theories to criminalize all manner of questionable conduct.  Smart, ambitious lawyers have sought to amass glory by prosecuting prominent public figures since the Roman Republic.  It is utterly unsurprising that prosecutors continue to do so today to the extent the Justice Department’s leaders will permit it.

As long as I am Attorney General, we will not.

Our job is to prosecute people who commit clear crimes.  It is not to use vague criminal statutes to police the mores of politics or general conduct of the citizenry.  Indulging fanciful legal theories may seem right in a particular case under particular circumstances with a particularly unsavory defendant—but the systemic cost to our justice system is too much to bear.

We need to recognize that and must take to heart the Supreme Court’s recent, unanimous admonition that “not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime.”

If we do not, more lives will be unfairly ruined.  And more unanimous admonitions from the Supreme Court will come.

3. Conclusion

In short, it is important for prosecutors at the Department of Justice to understand that their mission — above all others — is to do justice.  That means following the letter of the law, and the spirit of fairness.  Sometimes that will mean investing months or years in an investigation and then concluding it without criminal charges.  Other times it will mean aggressively prosecuting a person through trial and then recommending a lenient sentence, perhaps even one with no incarceration.

Our job is to be just as dogged in preventing injustice as we are in pursuing wrongdoing.  On this score, as on many, Justice Jackson said it best:

The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman.  And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway.  A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.

Thank you.

[LINK]

.

OWS Using Sound to Drum America Into Revolution


Meanwhile, the air being rent with piercing screams from the street mobs, the throbbing of OWS activist drums over the next 48 days serve as a reminder that the globalists want to keep a locked down humanity in their manufactured Twilight Zone

Judi McLeod image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 16, 2020

OWS Using Sound to Drum America Into Revolution

While their Comrades in Arms within Black Lives Matter and Antifa keep Americans aghast with cold-blooded cop-killing, rioting and looting in Democrat-controlled cities, and with fires still ravaging much of California and Oregon, noisy OWS (Occupation Wall Street) activists are counting on sound to blast the Republic into Election Day Revolution.

Organized by Canadian AdBusters.org, OWS will take over Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C, tomorrow and vow to remain there in occupation right up to Election Day:

Their warning about how they intend to celebrate their 9th anniversary is downright hippy-dippy, proof that they’ve never grown up or matured in any other way since their “yoga days” at Zuccotti Park in New York City:

“Tactical Briefing #4 (AdBusters.org)

“Hey all you activists, artists, musicians out there,

“Picture this: On street corners across America, a few musicians gather here, a few there . . . a brassy riff starts drifting, lilting above city thoroughfares and suburban byways . . . a swell of drums tumbling, trumpets crooning, basses thumping, saxophones wailing. As the thrum reaches a melancholy crescendo, the air itself becomes steeped in a deep blue revolutionary hue.

“The sound implores you to give in to its evolving, swirling pull . . . to respond, to step out, trust your instincts — and act.

“It’s the sound of jazz:

“bold, soulful, joyous, collaborative, improvisational.

“And, with a bit of luck, it’s going to swallow up the whole country for 50 days, starting this Thursday, September 17th — and remind it of the revolutionary mettle that it’s made of.

“Bring courage and wits — and your musical chops — to a street corner near you . . . and to pop-up sieges in front of federal buildings across the nation . . . and as the election approaches, to the White House in Washington, D.C.

“America doesn’t know what it’s about to hear.

“See (and hear) you starting September 17th.”

“Wisdomkeepers” and “global transformationalists”

Only far left, radical activists could think that their tailor-made Sound and Fury could “swallow up the whole country for 50 days”.

These activists even fail at simple Math. As of tomorrow, there are 13 days left in September, 31 days in October and 3 days in November, making swallowing up the whole country for 47 not 50 days.

As for the cacophony of noise, haven’t any of them heard of ear plugs?

If the promised “swell of drums tumbling” sounds familiar, it should.

It’s happened before twice, courtesy of the One World Order-seeking, American tax dollar-supported United Nations, the first time when Hanne Strong, beat her drums for three weeks straight.

“Hanne Strong,  used constant drumbeats to hold the “energy pattern” when her aging UN Poster Boy husband Maurice Strong led the 1992 Rio de Janeiro United Nations Earth Conference. (Canada Free Press Nov.13, 2009)

“Not one media jumped in to ask: “Constant drumbeats to hold the energy pattern?”

“Interesting that even back then the group Mrs. Maurice Strong led in a three-week vigil with “Wisdomkeepers”, were called “global transformationalists”. The round-the-clock sacred fire, drumbeat and meditation was what the transformationalists told the world was holding the “energy pattern” paving the way for the success of her husband-led Earth Summit.”

Mumbo jumbo magic and the birth of Agenda 21

“This mumbo jumbo ‘magic’ was the setting for the birth of Agenda 21, the plan now forcing the United States of America and the rest of the Free World into Communist One World Government. “

The second time U.N poohbahs called on sound to gainsay One World Order Revolution was with church bells.

“Church bells around the world,  which call Christians worldwide into church on Sundays, will join the din of drums and gongs to sound a UN ordered message 350 times on December 13 during the Copenhagen climate change summit.  The church bells are a call to action on global warming. (CFP Nov.13, 2009)

“The leading council of Christian and Orthodox churches also invited places of worship for other faiths to join a symbolic “chain of chimes and prayers” stretching around the world from the international date line in the South Pacific.” (Breitbart, Nov. 12, 2009).

“By sounding their bells or other instruments 350 times, participating churches will symbolise the 350 parts per million that mark the safe upper limit for C02 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere according to many scientists.”

And you thought only Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat presidential seeker Joe Biden were the only crazies.

No mumbo jumbo from Maurice and Hanne Strong, BLM, Antifa and OWS will save the world from the human misery about to be inflicted by the evil plan which robs nations of their sovereignty and makes serfs of the entire human population.

“While Hanne was out there beating her drums, hubby Maurice Strong said in his opening address to thousands of Rio delegates: “It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light.”  If these words sound chillingly familiar it’s because they are the same ones uttered by Satanists Alice Bailey and Helena Blavatsky before her, both of whom in their writings state that the “force of darkness” are those who adhere to the “out-dated” Judeo-Christian faith.  Those who continue along their “separative” paths of the one true God.  The “Force of Light” (Lucifer) in their view, is the inclusive new age doctrine of a pagan pantheistic New World Religion. (CFP)

And if Christian congregations aren’t having any of this evil served up from the pulpit, many of their religious leaders have already bought into it.

Today fear of Covid-19 has shut down all churches.

“The ringing of the bells, drums and gongs from churches is being used to boost the UN summit in Copenhagen Dec. 7 to 18,  which seeks to promote a new global treaty to broaden cuts in emission of greenhouse gases blamed for Al Gore-touted climate change. (CFP, —, —)

Meanwhile, the air being rent with piercing screams from the street mobs, the throbbing of OWS activist drums over the next 48 days serve as a reminder that the globalists want to keep a locked down humanity in their manufactured Twilight Zone.

But their own desperation is driving them towards another Big Fail.

Why Cops Sometimes Shoot “Unarmed” Citizens


Abroad, the military is our country’s sheepdog; here at home, the law enforcement community is. God bless them all

John Eidson image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 15, 2020

Why Cops Sometimes Shot Unarmed Citizens

On August 23, a combative black suspect named Jason Blake was shot by a Kenosha, Wisconsin police officer who thought Blake might be reaching into his SUV to retrieve a deadly weapon. In a shameful rush to judgment by a national media that salivates when unarmed black people are shot by white police, the incident was portrayed as an outrage where another unarmed black man was shot just for the hell of it by a rogue white cop in this “systemically racist” nation of ours. Was the shooting of Blake justifiable? The legal system has yet to answer that question. But as shown in the video below, determining the answer is not as easy as you might think.

What cops face every time they put on the uniform

Self-produced by a man obviously familiar with defensive firearms training, the homemade video explains why police officers sometimes shoot suspects who turn out to have been unarmed. This eye-opening presentation refers to the “OODA Loop.” OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) is an information processing tool used to train law enforcement officers to make faster and better decisions that not only help reduce the number of unwarranted police shootings of unarmed suspects, but also reduce an officer’s chance of getting killed due to a delayed response to a potentially lethal threat.

Because the video is homemade, watching it requires a bit more concentration than if it had been professionally produced. It may be helpful to watch it twice, but understanding its message will forever change your thinking about police shootings of unarmed suspects.

How do Police make shooting decisions?

Policing is one of the most difficult jobs in America. And thanks to race-baiting politics, it is also one of the most thankless. Every day and every night, law enforcement officers have to make life and death decisions in the blink of an eye, decisions that can determine whether their family ever sees them again.

“Random Stop” is an award-winning reenactment of the 1998 execution shooting of a Laurens County, Georgia sheriff’s deputy who hesitated when threatened by a mentally deranged man he’d pulled over for reckless driving. The recreation is based on actual dash cam footage that documented the initial part of the encounter in real time. Since the murder occurred at the rear of the officer’s patrol car and therefore was not recorded on dash cam, a recreation was made to convey the unimaginable terror the rookie officer experienced as he was executed in cold blood after begging in vain for mercy. Click here to view this intensely realistic depiction of the last moments of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller’s life, and then click here to see another chilling example of the kind of danger cops face every time they put on the uniform.

Cops: Our society’s domestic sheepdogs

In the movie “American Sniper,” Bradley Cooper told the story of the sheep, the wolves and the sheepdogs:

There are three types of people in this world: sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. Some people prefer to believe that evil doesn’t exist, and if it ever darkened their doorstep, they wouldn’t know how to protect themselves. These are the sheep. Then you’ve got predators who use violence to prey on the weak. They’re the wolves. And then there are those blessed with the gift of aggression, an overpowering need to protect the flock. These are the rare breed who live to confront the wolf. They are the sheepdogs.

Abroad, the military is our country’s sheepdog; here at home, the law enforcement community is. God bless them all.

Fans Do Not Like Political Statements in Games


There are a lot of people who object to politicizing sports games or Broadway plays. Here, this call for national equality when both teams locked arms invoked a lot of booing. I for one found it offensive when they stopped the Broadway play “Hamilton” to criticize Vice President Pence who was there in the audience. When people pay for such entertainment, they should not be subjected to the political ideas of those being paid for entertainment.

“MAGA vs. The Deep State Swamp”


“MAGA vs. The Deep State Swamp” Number 5 in the Drain the Swamp Series.

For the last four years President Trump has tirelessly exposed the Deep State Swamp. Trump has shown the American people the ruthless corruption in our government and called out the endless propaganda of the controlled mainstream media complex.

President Trump’s first term went by quickly and although much was accomplished, there was still a lot left to do.

The swamp runs deeper than anyone ever imagined.

Now the Democrat nominee, Joe Biden, claims he represents ‘decency.’ He’s a career politician known for gr op ing and sniffing females—adults and children alike.

He made it possible for his son Hunter to receive graft from Communist China. He believes taxpayers should fund abortion on demand. He believes in more taxes, a bigger and more bloated government, political correctness, BLM and ANTIFA, endless lockdowns, and a mask mandate. Joe is pro-war, a globalist, and he supported tossing low-level drug offenders into prison. Does this sound decent to you? Trump is not perfect, but he stands in sharp contrast to Biden. While Joe is pro-China, Trump is pro-jobs for Americans. He wants to preserve our free speech and our right to own firearms. He is a nationalist, not a globalist. He wants to put an end to the rioting and looting. He wants elections to be held in a fair and traditional manner, while Democrats want mail-in ballots, which will open the door to fraud. Trump is anti-war. That alone is a good reason to reelect him. The contrast between the two presidential candidates is obvious and definite. President Trump remains the only decent choice.

—Grrr Team

Early Look of the “Woke” NFL Game Plan


The NFL took a major hit in their ratings for opening week. Rating were down 16% with many fans tuning out the social justice lectures from virtue signaling millionaire players.

We have not watched a minute of the NFL and don’t plan on watching these over paid ingrates raising their fists in the air and kneeling during the anthem.

Look like it is true that the left wants to ruin everything, including pro-sports.

Turn the NFL off!

GrrrTeam

#SaveOurGirls From The Obamas


The hypocrisy of the Obamas in ‘Saving Our Girls’ is stunning

Judi McLeod image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 12, 2020

#SaveOurGirls From The Obamas

The legacy of convicted sexual predator Harvey Weinstein and the late Jeff Epstein live on over at Netflix—where the Tween Twerking drama Cutie is the latest A Star Is Born release in nauseating, streamed living color.

The film, generating controversy for its dance sequence showing underage girls gyrating provocatively and touching themselves sexually, is proof that filth is more contagious than any virus.

“The scene prompted the hashtag #CancelNetflix to reach the No. 1 trending item on Twitter Thursday. An online petition calling for customers to cancel their Netflix subscriptions has reached more than 600,000 signatures. (Breitbart, Sept. 11, 2020)

Before landing their multi-million dollar production deal at Netflix, Barack and Michelle Obama learned the ropes about movie making from their daughter, Malia, who worked for Weinstein in New York in 2017.

How do we know that the Obamas go along with the Netflix git-along-release of Cutie?

“Barack and Michelle Obama, who have a production deal with Netflix, have so far remained silent about the Cuties controversy, as has former Obama national security advisor Susan Rice, who sits on Netflix’s board of directors.” (Breitbart, Sept. 11, 2020)

Epically ironic that while her husband was in the Oval Office, Michell Obama took credit for the initiative, ‘Let Girls Learn’ that promoted education for girls.

“She’s said in the past that she put the Let Girls Learn initiative together in part because she was disturbed by the story of kidnapped schoolgirls”  (BBC, April 14, 2016)

“In her speech, though, she mentioned them only briefly.”

“Members of a militant organisation, Boko Haram, kidnapped 276 girls from a school in Chibok, Nigeria, on 14 April 2014.

“Afterwards Michelle Obama posted an image of herself on social media, posing with a white sheet of paper that said: “#BringBackOurGirls”.

“The hashtag campaign, designed to bring attention to the kidnappings, had already reached 1 million tweets by the time Obama joined, but her statement still made a splash. She gave a public address several days later, talking about the kidnappings.

“She said her husband was directing the US government do everything possible to help Nigerians bring the girls back.

…”On Wednesday, nearly two years after the abductions, Obama spoke about the girls during an event about education at the World Bank in Washington.

“Before Obama appeared at the podium, the World Bank’s president, Jim Yong Kim, announced that the bank group was investing $2.5b (£1.76b) in girls’ education projects around the world.

“Then Obama spoke about her initiative, Let Girls Learn, that promotes education for girls.

“She’s said in the past that she put the Let Girls Learn initiative together in part because she was disturbed by the story of the kidnapped schoolgirls.

“In her speech, though, she mentioned them only briefly.

“Why, two years ago, would terrorists be so threatened by the prospect of girls going to school that they would break into a dormitory in the middle of the night?” she said, describing the crime.

“Beyond that she didn’t say much about the girls – and didn’t talk about their fate, either.

“Fifty-seven of the girls escaped from Boko Haram. The rest are still missing, with little hope of returning to their previous lives.

“Obama once described it as an “unconscionable act”. Like people around the world, she was outraged.

“Yet the US effort – and impact – was minimal. Obama said Americans would help the Nigerians.

“With that goal in mind, the US sent several dozen Air Force personnel to the region to use drones to help find the girls, reported the New York Times.

“In addition a couple dozen Americans gave advice to Nigerian officials who were trying to save them.

“At one point authorities found them. But as Andrew Pocock, who served as British high commissioner to Nigeria, explained in the Sunday Times, they didn’t rescue them.
People could have been killed – possibly even the girls themselves.

“She said: “These girls are our girls – every last one of them.” She described children around the world as “our responsibility”.

“She stood in a foyer with a glass ceiling thirteen stories above her showcasing a turquoise-blue sky. Natural light flooded the building, reflecting off floor tiles.Economists, development experts, and gender-violence researchers cheered as she spoke. They were part of a global do-gooder scene that seemed unusual in button-down Washington.”

“Despite initial outrage and a humanitarian spirit, the first lady’s campaign to tell the world about the kidnapped schoolgirls – in the hope they’d be saved – ultimately failed.
In retrospect, the public-awareness campaign seemed a little dreamy.”

The hypocrisy of the Obamas in ‘Saving Our Girls’ is stunning.

The hashtag #BringBackOurGirls” should be changed to #SaveOurGirls” From The Likes Of The Obamas.

Fight ELITIST SUPPRESSION—Make CFP Your Go-To Home Page!

Everything (Very) Old Is New Again


This is not mere political warfare. It is spiritual warfare. Everything (Very) Old Is New Again. Godspeed, President Trump

Ray DiLorenzo image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesSeptember 12, 2020

Everything (Very) Old Is New Again

There was a time long ago when America came first. A time when our founders, many whose names you would not recognize, risked everything to birth this nation. A nation where natural rights were granted by God and recognized by our Constitution. A time when our first president could easily have continued his administration beyond two terms, but didn’t, lest he appear to be a king rather than a president. There was a time when members of congress served their country and its people for a relatively short time and then reentered private life to submit to what they had created, so as not to appear to be part of a cabal. That was the very old.

A cabal did eventually form, a criminal organization that does not know God and is determined to lord over men and women as was done before our country came to be. This cabal has now turned into a swamp, filled with monsters of self-interest, and agents of tyranny. That is now the old.

President Trump made fools of them all. It took a non-political businessman who owes no favors to accomplish what they couldn’t or wouldn’t do

For the last 120 years, except for brief respites during the Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan administrations, the swamp took hold, selling us down the river for their personal gain. They made bad trade deals and pushed us into useless wars so the nation’s military industrial complex and their congressional patrons could benefit at the expense of dead and wounded American soldiers.

Presidents told us we were moving toward a service economy, changes no voter wanted or anticipated. They told us that the cheap products we would buy from China would be good for our nation. They forgot to tell us that the loss of our manufacturing prowess would cost millions of jobs, devastate industrial cities and towns, be a major threat to our national security, benefit the corporations looking for cheap labor and raw materials, and be the dominant contributor toward building the largest communist behemoth in the world.

Amazingly, we are now witnessing a new paradigm born not of the old, but of the very old…America First. It is an adage forgotten by too many past presidents. If America is healthy, so is the free world. For the last four years it has proven itself to be not only compelling, but effective.

It remains not merely a slogan, but a powerful movement. A movement not to be trifled with.

Of course, it doesn’t end there with a lesson learned. The swamp, the cabal was not going to allow their rice bowl to be disturbed. They went to war against a president who had the fortitude and chutzpah to show the experts, the swamp creatures, what their priorities should be.

President Trump made fools of them all. It took a non-political businessman who owes no favors to accomplish what they couldn’t or wouldn’t do. And now, they feel, he must pay.

They tried and continue to try with every political trick in their quiver. First it was a Russia collusion tale, then a Ukrainian quid pro quo narrative. Then, it was an attempt at impeachment. When that failed, the Chinese communists dived in immediately with their manufactured bio-weapon, COVID-19. Still no luck. Now the Democrats are insisting on mail-in voting because of the COVID lockdowns that they have determined to keep alive. Ballots will be sent to almost everyone living in the United States, registered voters, non-registered, citizens, non-citizens, everyone.

Mail-in voter fraud will be the most dangerous of the political tactics

Mail-in voter fraud will be the most dangerous of the political tactics. It has the potential of pushing us over the edge toward civil war. The Democrats have hinted that they will not concede or accept a second Trump term. They have even recruited some retired swamp generals and circulated stories that the military will have to get involved in a Trump departure. The counting could take months. In the meantime they will have an army of lawyers with Nancy Pelosi standing by to assume the presidency.

Much of our country has been turned over to domestic enemies, a disloyal opposition. Committed Communists now dominate many blue cities, vilify police, drive out good citizens and investment. Almost 1,000 people per day are moving into states like Florida. While others are leaving blue states for red states like Arizona, South Carolina, Texas, Idaho, Montana. But, be assured, Trump supporters will not stand by and watch the President be railroaded.

What is so beyond the imagination, so loathsome in its reality, is the acceptance and apparent approval by the Democrats of the damage this minor pandemic and the policies of those past swamp administrations have done to our country and their outright callousness toward the people that make this country work, the middle class.

It should be obvious to everyone that President Trump has disturbed an old paradigm, a level of corruption and exploitation made normal for at least the last 100 years. We now have a welcome shift in objectives, and aspirations that has taken place in Washington. The interests of the everyday American is now at the center of the current administration’s attention. Special interests are no longer at the helm, steering our government in their direction. No more useless wars that make military suppliers and politicians rich while soldiers die and others live with grave physical and mental wounds. No more massive move by manufacturers leaving our shores to look for cheap labor. No more communist indoctrination of our young. No more selling of America.

This is not mere political warfare. It is spiritual warfare. Everything (Very) Old Is New Again. Godspeed, President Trump.

American History


California Hot Foot Dance


California is burning. Even San Francisco is filled with smoke.

If the widespread fires were intentionally set, then one is forced to wonder why. Knowing that many ‘conspiracy theories’ are in fact real conspiracies, I can think of three reasons.

1. The UN Agendas which mandate concentrating people into big cities and out of the countryside continue to be carried out. Last year we saw the town of Paradise completely and quickly burned and there were many indications that it was not natural. Was a special beam used to start the fires?

2. The far left loonies in charge of California (such as Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi) want the the federal government to send their state billions of dollars. Despite over-taxing its citizens, California is broke. Their politicians defied the law by allowing sanctuary cities, but they want the federal government to cover their costs. In other words, California’s Democrats are lawbreakers and treasonous, but they still want the dough. They can easily inflate the cost of the fire damage. Damage they may have caused themselves.

3. The fires were arranged to enhance an atmosphere of crisis, which in turn will be used to damage Trump’s reelection chances. Look for Gavin Newsom to blame it all on the president.

Or it could be the extreme environmentalism in California. Trees were not allowed to be logged and thinned. The buildup of ground detritus was not allowed to be cleared. That’s not a conspiracy theory, but it certainly can lead to rampant conflagration.

Regardless, Smokey Bear is not a happy camper in California and he will become more unhappy when they raise his taxes.

—BEN GARRISON 

De Oppresso Liber

The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

America-Wake-Up

This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America

TOTT News

Australia's Front Line

CherriesWriter - Vietnam War website

See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors

Nwo Report

Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News

Scott Adams' Blog

De Oppresso Liber

Robert David Steele

Intelligence with Integrity

Stella's Place

Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com

livingbyathread

Exposition and Encouragement

Disrupted Physician

The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction

Easy Money

Featuring Socio-Economic-Financial News Topics Followed by Martin Hladyniuk

all thoughts connected

"Feel free to associate..."

keithgarrettpoetry

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Saints in the Spirit

Empowered with Insperational Qoutes,Spiritual Qoutes, Prayers and laughter.

Bob's Opinion

Conservative Christian and Political Opinion Site. exposing corruption in the church and politics.

Laura Bon

Inspiring the world

%d bloggers like this: