Thursday, February 1, 2018

President Trump Delivers the State of the Union Address

On January 30, 2018, President Donald J. Trump delivered his first State of the Union Address. Read the full remarks of the President’s 2018 State of the Union Address here

 The Bedlam Farm 2018 State Of The Farm Report. We Are No "Shithole."

The Bedlam Farm 2018 State Of The Farm Report. We Are No "Shithole."
By Jon Katz
January 31, 2018

This morning, I went out to the barn as usual, but instead of feeding the animals right away, I gave my annual "State Of The Farm" talk to the sheep, donkeys and dogs (said dogs were on either side of the sheep, the strange little dog was in the house, spitting something up, no doubt.)

They all gathered attentively to hear my message, the alfalfa treats in my pocket had nothing to do with it.

I should tell you it was an amazing speech, there has never been one like it, it was..well, amazing.

I told the animals I was happy to tell them that the state of the farm is good.

We had excellent hay all winter, and mice did not get into the grain bags. The manure pile is growing at a faster pace than last year, perhaps because of the feed we fed them to help with the cold.

"I've done an incredible job on the farm," I told the animals, who were on their feet cheering every moment of the talk. Only Lulu turned her head away, as if disgusted. The sheep baaaaahed at her. Lulu gave off a strange bray.

It sounded like "more bullshit," to me, but she just looked at me with her big brown eyes.

"This year, in just a few months, " I said, "we became the safest, strongest and best farm in history. Our animals grew antennae, transmit signals, can read French, we abolished ticks, the sheep can take hay out of the barn themselves, they have formed their own subscription  blog online. Read more

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Tulsi Gabbard Hits Mainstream Media With Hard Facts on US Regime Change Policy

Tulsi Gabbard Hits Mainstream Media With Hard Facts on US Regime Change Policy
Mint Press News
By Alex Christoforou
January 18th, 2018

Tulsi Gabbard: "North Korea sees what we did in Iraq with Saddam Hussein, with those false reports of weapons of mass destruction."

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was interviewed on ABC News "This Week" following the human error that led to a false alarm missile message in Hawaii.

During one defining moment of the interview, long time Clinton staffer, George Stephanopoulos asked Gabbard point blank, "Was it a mistake for the United States to take out Gaddafi and Hussein?"

Gabbard responded without hesitation, "It was, absolutely."

Stephanopoulos appeared shocked at the response.

Gabbard destroyed many mainstream media myths on American intervention, and how it relates to the current North Korea nuclear standoff:
"We know that North Korea has these nuclear weapons because they see how the United States in Libya for example guaranteed Gadaffi – ‘we’re not going to go after you, you should get rid of your nuclear weapons.’

He did, then we went and led an attack that toppled Gaddafi, launching Libya into chaos that we are still seeing the results of today.

North Korea sees what we did in Iraq with Saddam Hussein, with those false reports of weapons of mass destruction. And now seeing in Iran how President Trump is decertifying a nuclear deal that prevented Iran from developing their nuclear weapons, threatening the very existence and the agreement that was made."
Gabbard is an Army reserve officer who previously served two tours in the Middle East, including in Iraq, and has been an outspoken critic of regime change and Washington’s interventionist foreign policy.

Tulsi Gabbard

We've got to understand that North Korea is holding onto these nuclear weapons because they think it is their only protection from the United States coming in and doing to them what the United States has done to so many countries throughout history.
8:35 PM - Jan 14, 2018
"As Zerohedge reports: Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard appeared on multiple Sunday news shows a day after her state’s false ICBM emergency alert sent the islands into a tense 40 minutes of panic before it was revealed to be a message sent in error, where she slammed the mainstream media’s reporting on the North Korean nuclear threat, saying, "We’ve got to understand that North Korea is holding onto these nuclear weapons because they think it is their only protection from the United States coming in and doing to them what the United States has done to so many countries throughout history."
 She further called for Trump to hold direct talks with Kim Jong Un in order to prevent the real thing from ever happening.

On Saturday Gabbard criticized President Trump for mishandling North Korea, taking to MSNBC she proclaimed, "our leaders have failed us. Donald Trump is taking too long… he’s not taking this [nuclear] threat seriously…"

During Sunday interviews she elaborated a plan of action, advising Trump to enter talks with Pyongyang which should "happen without preconditions" and that Trump should "sit across the table from Kim Jong Un" in order stamp out the climate of fear which contributed to the "unacceptable" alert issued on Saturday.

"We’ve got to get to the underlying issue here of why are the people of Hawaii and this country facing a nuclear threat coming from North Korea today, and what is this President doing urgently to eliminate that threat?" Gabbard said on CNN’s State of the Union. She added that Pyongyang sees its nuclear weapons program as "the only deterrent against the U.S. coming in and overthrowing their regime there" after decades of the U.S. exhibiting a pattern of regime change when dealing with rogue states, which she said makes setting up preconditions for talks a self-defeating step.

And concerning the potential for an "unintentional" nuclear war, Gabbard said:
"It’s not just the President making a decision to launch a nuclear weapon. It’s these kinds of mistakes that we have seen happen in the past that bring us to this brink of nuclear war that could be unintentional."

Tulsi Gabbard

When the people of Hawaii got this message yesterday, they were literally going through this feeling of "I've got minutes to find my loved ones, to say my last goodbyes, to figure out where could I possibly find shelter that would protect me from a nuclear attack."
2:49 PM - Jan 14, 2018

Friday, January 19, 2018

Congresswoman Who Went to Syria Says US Funds ISIS

Congresswoman Who Went to Syria Says the US Funds ISIS
By Darius Shahtahmasebi
January 31, 2017 at 11:28 am

Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, the lawmaker who accused the U.S. government of funding and arming ISIS and introduced a bill to prevent it from happening in future, recently disclosed that she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during her recent trip to Syria. The move has reportedly angered many of her fellow congressmen and women.

Upon returning from the war-stricken nation, Gabbard released the following statement in the form of a press release:

"My visit to Syria has made it abundantly clear: Our counterproductive regime change war does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people.

"As I visited with people from across the country, and heard heartbreaking stories of how this war has devastated their lives, I was asked, ‘Why is the United States and its allies helping al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups try to take over Syria? Syria did not attack the United States. Al-Qaeda did.’ I had no answer."

According to the press release, Gabbard met with refugees, Syrian opposition leaders who led protesters in 2011, widows and family members who fight alongside al-Qaeda groups, pro-Assad troops, humanitarian workers, and students, to name a few. Gabbard also met with high-ranking officials such as Lebanon’s newly-elected President Aon and Prime Minister Hariri, as well as U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Elizabeth Richard, Syrian President Assad, Grand Mufti Hassoun, and Archbishop Denys Antoine Chahda of the Syrian Catholic Church of Aleppo.

Initially, Gabbard allegedly had no intention of meeting Assad, as she stated in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper. Read more

Tulsi Gabbard
Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard (born April 12, 1981) is an American politician of the Democratic Party serving as the U.S. Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district since 2013. She was also a Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee until February 28, 2016, when she resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.[2] Elected in 2012, she is the first Samoan American[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress.[4]

She served in a combat zone in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009.[5] Gabbard previously served in the Hawaii House of Representatives from 2002 to 2004, becoming at age 21 the youngest woman to be elected to a U.S. state legislature at the time.[6]

Gabbard is noted for her charisma and unorthodox political positions.[7] Gabbard supports abortion rights, opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, has called for a restoration of the Glass–Steagall Act, and has been in favor of same-sex marriage since 2012. She denounces regime change wars like those in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and has opposed the U.S.-led removal of Bashar al-Assad from power, arguing that the country's civil war is a source of the Syrian refugee crisis. She has been mentioned as a potential candidate for President of the United States in 2020.[8][9] Read more

Monday, January 15, 2018

U.S. Government Implicated As Conspirator In MLK Assassination

President Lyndon Johnson shakes hands with the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., after handing him one of the pens used in signing the Civil Rights Act of July 2, 1964 at the White House in Washington.

U.S. Government Implicated As Conspirator In MLK Assassination
The Fifth Column News
January 20th, 2016

In American tradition, one official account will be told of the tragic killing of a peaceful revolutionary who influenced all of society, while underneath lies an insidious and unclear alternative narrative of government deception.

Seattle, Washington – In 1999, a Memphis Circuit Court jury determined that the U.S. federal government was involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. In remembrance of the great Civil Rights movement leader whose legacy of social change transcends death, consider the facts of the case that proved to a citizen jury beyond a reasonable doubt that trusted public institutions were implicit in the plot to end King’s life and apparent influence over the American people. Following weeks of testimony and a parade of witnesses, the jury returned with a unanimous verdict after only about an hour, according to The King Center. King was killed in 1968; it only took the King family 32 years to have justice served. Following the court decision, the family held a press conference and commented on the need for the truth of this court case to be widely disseminated:
"We have done what we can to reveal the truth, and we now urge you as members of the media, and we call upon elected officials, and other persons of influence to do what they can to share the revelation of this case to the widest possible audience," said Coretta Scott King, following the verdict.
The Department of Justice, in their own investigation, found no evidence of conspiracy or collusion; however, the King assassination case has many inconsistencies. In an apparent confession, a guilty plea was entered in 1969 by the official scapegoat, James Earl Ray. Ray was captured and pled guilty after King’s death. Having a suspect in hand may have hindered any deeper investigation into the events of that fateful night, April 4th, 1968. Three days after his alleged confession, Ray recanted his story. James Earl Ray died of hepatitis complications in 1998 after spending thirty years in prison, the whole while maintaining his innocence. Loyd Jowers, who owned a business near the crime scene, inserted himself into the plot in 1993, claiming to be heavily involved in the conspiracy. The family seemed to believe both Ray and Jowers, as they went on to file the 1999 civil case – The King Family vs. Loyd Jowers – naming Jowers as a co-conspirator and insinuating a high-level government conspiracy and media collusion in the death of the beloved leader, preacher, and father. Over seventy witnesses testified and the King family received the verdict they sought.

To make clear that money was not at the core of the civil suit, the family only asked for $100 as restitution. What the King family sought was vindication that the official narrative of Mr. King’s death was not the truth. Mrs. King said in the family press release, "The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state, and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband." The jury decision seems to determine that Ray was set up to take the fall for a crime he did not commit; the family asserts this is proof of conspiracy and justice system failure. Mrs. King called the court decision "a great victory for justice and truth." The King Center has made the full transcript of the court case available online to help researchers, truth seekers, and media to investigate the details.
 "We don’t care what the justice department does. This is another misnomer. We did not do this to force their hand. I doubt seriously that they will indict themselves, for who polices the police? That is up to the American public," says Dexter King, in a public statement following the decision.
Nearly fifty years after King’s death, it seems unlikely that those responsible will ever be held fully accountable or the truth told. In American tradition, one official account will be told of the tragic killing of a peaceful revolutionary who influenced all of society, while underneath lies an insidious and unclear alternative narrative of government deception. In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., let us remember and retell the King family’s version of King’s assassination – the version in which his message of positive and peaceful social change threatened the power elite; so they had him murdered. Read more

MLK "I Have a Dream" speech
I Have a Dream

"I Have a Dream" is a public speech delivered by American civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963, in which he calls for an end to racism in the United States and called for civil and economic rights. Delivered to over 250,000 civil rights supporters from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., the speech was a defining moment of the civil rights movement.[2]

Beginning with a reference to the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed millions of slaves in 1863,[3] King observes that: "one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free".[4] Toward the end of the speech, King departed from his prepared text for a partly improvised peroration on the theme "I have a dream", prompted by Mahalia Jackson's cry: "Tell them about the dream, Martin!"[5] In this part of the speech, which most excited the listeners and has now become its most famous, King described his dreams of freedom and equality arising from a land of slavery and hatred.[6] Jon Meacham writes that, "With a single phrase, Martin Luther King Jr. joined Jefferson and Lincoln in the ranks of men who've shaped modern America".[7] The speech was ranked the top American speech of the 20th century in a 1999 poll of scholars of public address.[8] Read more

"I Have A Dream..." speech Copyright 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. (PDF transcript)

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Study: 'Adultification' has black girls facing harsher punishments

Study: 'Adultification' has black girls facing harsher punishments

ABA Journal
By Cristin Wilson
November 2017

A new study from the Center on Poverty and Inequality at Georgetown University Law Center describes "adultification" of African-American girls that negatively impacts how they’re treated by school administrators, law enforcement and the justice system, beginning in childhood.

Girlhood Interrupted: The Erasure of Black Girls Childhood provides data revealing for the first time how adults view black girls, according to its authors. It builds on previous research on adult perceptions of African-American boys.

The study found that black girls are perceived as less innocent and more adultlike than Caucasian girls, especially between 5 and 14, which results in disparities in school and the criminal justice system. The study reveals that, among other misconceptions, adults think black girls seem older than white girls the same age, know more about sex, and need less support and comfort.

Attorney Rebecca Epstein, lead author of the report and executive director of the center, says the most surprising thing was that girls as young as 5 were subjected to adultification. "Potentially reaching back as early as kindergarten, black girls are viewed as less needing of protection and nurturing," Epstein says.

Lara Kaufmann, director of public policy for Girls Inc., a national nonprofit that helps young women navigate gender, economic and social barriers, isn’t surprised by the findings. "That speaks to how deep these stereotypes run and how far these biases go," she says. "Awareness is the first step."

The study sought to explain stark criminal justice and school discipline disparities between black girls and their white counterparts. For example, black girls are five times more likely to be suspended than white girls and twice as likely to be suspended as white boys. They are about three times as likely to be referred to the juvenile justice system as white girls.

African-American girls are routinely treated more harshly, according to the report. And those in decision-making positions think black girls "should know better. They don’t need protection. … They don’t need a second chance," Epstein says.

"One of the biggest goals was to start a conversation to recognize the differential treatment of black girls," she says. "It seems to have resonated."

The Georgetown researchers say their analysis is the first step, and more work is needed to address, and remedy, the negative stereotypes and implicit biases. Read more

Black Girls Viewed As Less Innocent Than White Girls, Georgetown Law Research Finds

First study focused on "adultification" of black girls shows significant bias toward girls starting at age 5, younger than in previous research on black boys

A groundbreaking study released today by Georgetown Law’s Center on Poverty and Inequality finds that adults view black girls as less innocent and more adult-like than their white peers, especially in the age range of 5-14.

The study, detailed in the new report, Girlhood Interrupted: The Erasure of Black Girls’ Childhood, is the first of its kind to focus on girls, and builds on previous research on adult perceptions of black boys. That includes a 2014 study led by Phillip Goff that found that, beginning at age 10, black boys are more likely to be viewed as older and guilty of suspected crimes than white peers.

Authors of the new Georgetown Law report adapted the scale of childhood innocence developed by Goff and colleagues to include items associated with stereotypes of black women and girls. They then applied the scale to a new survey on adult perceptions of girls.  The findings showed significant bias toward black girls starting at age 5.

"What we found is that adults see black girls as less innocent and less in need of protection as white girls of the same age," said Rebecca Epstein, lead author of the report and executive director of the Center on Poverty and Inequality at the Georgetown University Law Center.

 "This new evidence of what we call the ‘adultification’ of black girls may help explain why black girls in America are disciplined much more often and more severely than white girls – across our schools and in our juvenile justice system," said Epstein.

The new report reveals that adults think:
  • Black girls seem older than white girls of the same age.
  • Black girls need less nurturing than white girls.
  • Black girls need less protection than white girls.
  • Black girls need to be supported less than white girls.
  • Black girls need to be comforted less than white girls.
  • Black girls are more independent than white girls.
  • Black girls know more about adult topics than white girls.
  • Black girls know more about sex than white girls.
The study applied statistical analysis to a survey of 325 adults from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds and educational levels across the United States. Across the four age brackets examined, the most significant differences in adult perceptions were found in relation to girls in mid-childhood (ages 5-9) and early adolescence (10-14), continuing to a lesser degree in the 15 to 19-year-old group.  No statistically significant differences were found in the 0-4 age group.

Biases revealed by the study may shed new light on why black girls are consistently disciplined more harshly than white girls. The report authors point out that educators, school-based police officers and officials across the juvenile justice system often have significant discretion in their decision making, including for minor, subjective infractions such as dress code violations, disobedience and disruptive behavior.

Until now, few scholars have thoroughly investigated why black girls are subjected to differential disciplinary treatment, such as:
  • Black girls are five times more likely to be suspended as white girls, and twice as likely to be suspended as white boys.
  • Black girls make up just under 16% of the female school population, but account for 28% of referrals to law enforcement, and 37% of arrests.  White girls account for 50% the female school population, but only 34% of referrals and 30% of arrests.
  • Black girls are nearly three times as likely to be referred to the juvenile justice system as white girls.
  • Black girls are 20% more likely to be charged with a crime than white girls.
  • Black girls are 20% more likely than white girls to be detained.
  • Black girls are less likely to benefit from prosecutorial discretion.  One study found that prosecutors dismissed only 30% of cases against black girls, while dismissing 70% of cases against white girls.
The report authors call for further study into the adultification of black girls and its possible causal connections to negative outcomes across public systems, including education, juvenile justice and child welfare.  They also recommend providing teachers and law enforcement officials with training on adultification to help counteract the negative consequences of this bias against black girls.

"These findings show that pervasive stereotypes of black women as hypersexualized and combative are reaching into our schools and playgrounds and helping rob black girls of the protections other children enjoy," said report coauthor Jamilia Blake, an associate professor at Texas A&M University.  "We urge legislators, advocates and policymakers to examine the disparities that exist for black girls in the education and juvenile justice systems and to pursue reforms that preserve childhood for all."

Download the report here: Girlhood Interrupted: The Erasure of Black Girls’ Childhood

Media Contact:
202-662-9694.o 202-577-7827.m

Saturday, January 6, 2018

Trump's lawyer sends letter demanding publisher halt release of unflattering book

Trump's lawyer sends letter demanding publisher halt release of unflattering book

ABA Journal Daily News
By Terry Carter
January 4, 2018

Updated: A prominent libel lawyer representing President Donald Trump has fired off cease-and-desist letters in an attempt to stop the scheduled release of an unflattering book on the president's administration, and to stifle Steve Bannon, Trump's former strategist whose derogatory comments in the book have infuriated the president.

Charles J. Harder, a California lawyer whose privacy lawsuit on behalf of Hulk Hogan pushed the Gawker media company into bankruptcy, wrote an 11-page letter to author Michael Wolff and Steve Rubin, president and publisher of Henry Holt & Co., demanding a halt the release of the book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, the New York Times and Washington Post report.

Harder’s letter claims the book includes false statements about Trump that "give rise to claims for libel" and the possibility of "substantial monetary damages and punitive damages."

It continues: "Mr. Trump hereby demands that you immediately cease and desist from any further publication, release or dissemination of the book, the article, or any excerpts or summaries of either of them, to any person or entity, and that you issue a full and complete retraction and apology to my client as to all statements made about him in the book and article that lack competent evidentiary support."

CNN reports that the book will go on sale Friday – four days earlier than planned.

Excerpts of Wolff’s book have been published by New York Magazine and Reuters, and pages from advance copies have been circulating on Twitter and among the news media. Bannon is quoted as saying of Donald Trump Jr.’s and Jared Kushner’s meeting with Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign, "Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately."

Harder says he is looking into possible defamation and invasion of privacy of the president and his family, ABC News reports. Harder previously represented Melania Trump in two libel suits against the British tabloid newspaper the Daily Mail, which were settled in April, the New York Times reported at the time.

ABC News reports that in his letter to Bannon, Harder said Bannon’s actions open him to legal claims for defamation by libel and slander, and are a breach of his "written confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement with our clients. Legal action is imminent."

"Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind," Trump wrote in a statement printed in full by NPR. "Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books."

One First Amendment expert says Harder’s letters likely will have no impact other than for their news value.

"I wouldn’t worry too much about any judge granting prior restraint in this matter unless they’re not familiar with precedent or current law," says Jonathan Kotler, a lawyer with broad experience in media law who teaches at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California, in an interview with the ABA Journal.

Prior restraint would only be granted if the book violated obscenity laws, endangered national security or if it were the only way possible to ensure a fair criminal trial for a defendant, he says.

"Beyond that, in the United States we allow publication and we punish afterward," says Kotler. As for claims that Bannon breached contractual agreements on speaking, Kotler says Trump can sue for breach of contact.

Updated at 4:56 p.m. to include a link to the letter Charles Harder sent Michael Wolff and Steve Rubin; updated at 5:48 p.m. with the release date moved up to Friday. Read more

3 days into new job, Philadelphia DA Krasner fires 31 staff members

Larry Krasner
3 days into new job, Philadelphia DA Krasner fires 31 staff members
ABA Journal Daily News
By Jason Tashea
January 5, 2018

New Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner fired 31 members of the office three days into the job.

The move makes "clear his intention to take the office in a different direction," spokesman Ben Waxman told

Before winning the election last year, Krasner was a civil rights attorney who often sued the government, including law enforcement. He also defended activists, like those arrested at the 2000 Republican National Convention, and protesters from the Black Lives Matter movement.

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office employs about 600 people, half of whom are prosecutors. While names of those fired were not released, reports state that the people pushed out Friday could account for up to 10 percent of the prosecutorial staff.

Homicide prosecutor Andrew Notaristefano, who was actively preparing a case, told he received "no explanation" for being let go. Notaristefano also says his request to speak with Krasner about the firing was denied.

After Krasner took the oath of office on Tuesday, he said, "A movement was sworn in today… A movement for criminal justice reform that has swept Philadelphia … and is sweeping the United States."

Krasner was financially supported in part by George Soros, a billionaire who has started to invest in local district attorney races to promote progressive criminal justice reform and minority candidates. Since 2015, Soros has spent at least $3 million dollars on electing prosecutors, according to Politico.

Krasner takes over an office that’s not been without controversy. Seth Williams, the previously elected district attorney, resigned from office and plead guilty to federal bribery charges last June.

The District Attorney’s office had not yet released a statement on the firings as of Friday evening. Read more

George Soros
George Soros' quiet overhaul of the U.S. justice system
August 30, 2016

Progressives have zeroed in on electing prosecutors as an avenue for criminal justice reform, and the billionaire financier is providing the cash to make it happen.

While America’s political kingmakers inject their millions into high-profile presidential and congressional contests, Democratic mega-donor George Soros has directed his wealth into an under-the-radar 2016 campaign to advance one of the progressive movement’s core goals — reshaping the American justice system.

The billionaire financier has channeled more than $3 million into seven local district-attorney campaigns in six states over the past year — a sum that exceeds the total spent on the 2016 presidential campaign by all but a handful of rival super-donors.

His money has supported African-American and Hispanic candidates for these powerful local roles, all of whom ran on platforms sharing major goals of Soros’, like reducing racial disparities in sentencing and directing some drug offenders to diversion programs instead of to trial. It is by far the most tangible action in a progressive push to find, prepare and finance criminal justice reform-oriented candidates for jobs that have been held by longtime incumbents and serve as pipelines to the federal courts — and it has inspired fury among opponents angry about the outside influence in local elections.

"The prosecutor exercises the greatest discretion and power in the system. It is so important," said Andrea Dew Steele, president of Emerge America, a candidate-training organization for Democratic women. "There’s been a confluence of events in the past couple years and all of the sudden, the progressive community is waking up to this."

Soros has spent on district attorney campaigns in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas through a network of state-level super PACs and a national "527" unlimited-money group, each named a variation on "Safety and Justice." (Soros has also funded a federal super PAC with the same name.) Each organization received most of its money directly from Soros, according to public state and federal financial records, though some groups also got donations from nonprofits like the Civic Participation Action Fund, which gave to the Safety and Justice group in Illinois. Read more

Saturday, December 30, 2017

US Supreme Court petitions, reverse mortgage foreclosure

The U.S. Supreme Court has docketed my two petitions for writ of certiorari in the wrongful foreclosure of my home on a reverse mortgage.

Docket for 17-7053 (Supreme Court of Florida Case #SC17-1570)
Title: Neil J. Gillespie, Petitioner v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions
Neil J. Gillespie, Petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 10, 2018) Party name: Neil Gillespie

Docket for 17-7054 (Supreme Court of Florida Case #SC17-1572)
Title: Neil J. Gillespie, Petitioner v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions
Neil J. Gillespie, Petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 10, 2018) Party name: Neil Gillespie

                                        QUESTIONS PRESENTED
                               (same questions presented for each petition)

1.    Does the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantee the right to a trial by jury in a state court residential home foreclosure of a federal Home Equity Conversion Mortgage [12 USC § 1715z–20; 24 CFR Part 206] also called a HECM reverse mortgage?

2.    Does a disabled homeowner age 61 have a right to assistance of counsel under the federal Older Americans Act, 42 U.S. Code Chapter 35 - PROGRAMS FOR OLDER AMERICANS, for old age, and disability including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)?

3.    Can the Civil Rights Division, Voting Section, U.S. Department of Justice ignore the enclosed Voting Section complaint against Florida’s rigged judicial elections?

4.     Can the U.S. Department of Justice deny on May 18, 2017 my FOIA into the mental health screening imposed by the Florida Supreme Court on bar applicants, because the records you have requested pertain to an ongoing law enforcement proceeding?

5.    Can the U.S. Supreme Court ignore wrongdoing in Petition 12-7747 for a writ of certiorari as stated in the enclosed letter of Mr. Clayton Higgins on October 19, 2016?

6.    Do time limits on civil litigation have any meaning? Pursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.250(a)(1)(B), the time standard for a civil trial case is 18 months from filing to final disposition. Non-jury cases — 12 months (filing to final disposition)

SCOTUS Petition No 17-7053 (petition only) Complete petition file
  • APPENDIX 1 Order Dismissal Mar-31-2017, Notice Appeal Mar-27-2017
  • APPENDIX 3 US Supreme Court Clerk's Reply Letter Mr Higgins Oct-19-2016
  • APPENDIX 4 Affidavit of Neil Gillespie Re Dr. Kassels Jun-12-2017
  • APPENDIX 6 Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie HECM Age Limits
  • APPENDIX 7 Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie - Defenses and Claims in Recoupment
  • APPENDIX 8 Petitioners Motion to Correct Fraud Upon the Court
  • APPENDIX 9 AFFIDAVIT OF NEIL GILLESPIE, Non-Jury Trial July 18, 2017

SCOTUS Petition No. 17-7054 (petition only) Complete petition file
  • APPENDIX A Verified Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Ann Melinda Craggs
  • APPENDIX B Second Verified Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Ann Melinda Craggs
  • APPENDIX C Defendants Motion to Cancel Hearing Set For November 28, 2016 
  • APPENDIX D Defendants Second Motion to Cancel Hearing Set For November 28, 2016
  • APPENDIX E Judicial Disqualification - Memorandum of Law 
  • APPENDIX F Notice of Refiling Federal Civil Rights Complaint Due to Official Misconduct By David R. Ellspermann
  • APPENDIX G Instruction To The Clerk Administrative Order A-2013-56 Foreclosure Case Status Reporting

Sunday, December 24, 2017

The movement to impeach Trump is just beginning

Trump speaks about the passage of tax reform legislation
The movement to impeach Trump is just beginning

New York Post, Opinion
By Michael Goodwin
November 24, 2017

Before you settle down for a long winter’s nap with adult visions of sugar plums, consider a key fact about the 2018 midterm elections: We already know what they’re going to be about.

Republicans, thanks to their last-minute tax triumph, will run on a pro-growth agenda. If the middle-class tax cuts work as promised, if the economy cooperates by continuing to expand by 3 percent or more and produces jobs, jobs, jobs, the GOP will have a strong message to sell.

It will need one to protect its narrow margins in Congress, especially because the majority party usually loses seats in the first midterms.

Democrats, on the other hand, have no message, no leader and nothing to brag about. That leaves a vacuum, which is being filled with one idea: impeaching President Trump.

Now if an election that pits tax cuts and job growth vs. impeachment strikes you as crazy, don’t blame me. And, truth be told, you can’t really blame Democratic Party leaders either. They aren’t so much leading their base as following it.

The "resistance" wing is taking over the party and congressional bosses Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi can either jump on the "Impeach" bandwagon — or get run over by it.

They’re capitulating already, as proven by the way Schumer and others reacted to a rumor last week that the president was going to fire special counsel Robert Mueller.

Never mind that Trump denied it, and there wasn’t even an anonymous source. It was just a rumor started by one House Democrat who said somebody she knew said something about Trump, so she repeated it to the media.

On cue, the Dem lemmings rushed to the microphones and cameras to warn that Trump would face impeachment if he fired Mueller. It was a sneaky way of sounding a dog whistle without a fact to justify it.

In fact, Schumer et al. would be head over heels with joy if Trump did fire Mueller. That would give their impeachment effort gravitas and make it more appealing to independent voters and even some Republicans.

So while they were warning Trump not to fire Mueller, their hope is that he does.

Politically, all this is catnip to the party’s media handmaidens and gives them something to write about instead of the GOP success at passing tax cuts.

Their nonstop chatter, including on the late-night comedy shows, is helping the impeachment madness break the bounds of the loony left and go mainstream.

In line with other recent polls, Quinnipiac’s latest survey reports that Trump’s national approval is just 37 percent, while 50 percent of voters, including 59 percent of women, believe he should resign — and that’s just over the sexual allegations against him.

Among Democrats, Trump’s resignation was favored by a whopping 85–12 percent, while independents favored it by 52–44 percent.

These numbers are off the charts, and they explain the bosses’ emerging strategy. While they’ll decorate the campaign tree with a few other items, like raising taxes on the wealthy and climate-change scares, removing the president will be their main argument for electing a Democratic Congress.

Not incidentally, notice that the sexual allegations against Trump, although they were made before he defeated Hillary Clinton, have replaced Russia, Russia, Russia as the main justification for impeachment. While the Harvey Weinstein-Charlie Rose tsunami is part of the explanation, the other part is that Dems are giving up on Mueller finding anything significant.

Cynic though I am, I never thought the Dems would go down such a low road.

A year ago, when Trump Derangement Syndrome picked up steam after his victory, I assumed it would last six months at most, and there were times when it seemed to be petering out. The "need to impeach" ads by hedge-funder Tom Steyer struck me as a billionaire’s folly.

But I was making the same mistake about the resistance that others had made about Trump’s electability. I assumed it wouldn’t last because nothing like it ever had.

But it’s clear now that the mob-like motivation isn’t going to disappear. It’s become a steamroller force on the left.

No other idea, whether it’s Bernie Sanders’ Free Stuff agenda, or the racial-ethnic-gender quota-spoils dreams of DNC boss Tom Perez, can match the fervor of the hate-Trump movement. It’s the straw stirring the drink.

Which is what makes it so dangerous. Never in modern times has a major party used impeachment as a pure political weapon.

Yet, assuming Mueller comes up with nothing significant, that’s exactly what Democrats are planning. They will try to win with impeachment what they lost at the ballot box, effectively nullifying the 2016 election.

Which brings me to my final prediction: If you think our politics are nasty now, just wait a few months. The midterm campaign is going to be vicious and dirty beyond belief. Read more

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Veterans Day - Mad World

Mad World, Published on Jun 28, 2014 by Logan Stark
Footage from 3/5's deployment to Sangin, Afghanistan
Song: Mad World by Gary Jules

For the 25 is a documentary film by Logan Stark to memorialize 25 Marines in his unit who died during his seven-month tour in Afghanistan. More than 200 other soldiers were wounded.

On Patrol Magazine, For The 25, by Logan S. Stark
Navy Cross Citation for Sgt Matthew T. Abbate (posthumous)
USA Today, Vet's documentary honors fallen Marines

National Veterans and Military Families Month - November 2017
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

For 98 years, Americans have remembered those who served our country in uniform on 11 November – first as Armistice Day, and then, since 1954 as Veterans Day. In this 99th year of commemoration, the Department of Veterans Affairs is broadening that tradition of observance and appreciation to include both Veterans and Military Families for the entire month of November. President Donald J. Trump Proclaims November 2017 as National Veterans and Military Families Month.

Joseph Ambrose
Veterans Day

Veterans Day is an official United States public holiday, observed annually on November 11, that honors military veterans; that is, persons who served in the United States Armed Forces. It coincides with other holidays, including Armistice Day and Remembrance Day, celebrated in other countries that mark the anniversary of the end of World War I; major hostilities of World War I were formally ended at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, when the Armistice with Germany went into effect. The United States previously observed Armistice Day. The U.S. holiday was renamed Veterans Day in 1954. Read more

Photo: World War I veteran Joseph Ambrose attends the dedication parade for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, holding the flag that covered the casket of his son, killed in the Korean War.

One Veteran's Story: "You Come Back And You Just Don't Feel The Same."
Published on Nov 12, 2012

Marine veteran Shane Santelli shares his story of deployment in Afghanistan. During his deployment from February to September 2010, Santelli was hit by an improvised explosive device (IED). He has suffered from traumatic brain injury (TBI), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as injuries to his spine.

Santelli shares what Veteran's Day means to him. To follow Santelli's story, check out the documentary Picking Up the Pieces. 2 minutes. Produced by Amanda Winkler. Music by Andrew Gaddy.

Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun
TEDxAmsterdam, Published on Jan 30, 2012

Peter van Uhm is the Netherlands' chief of defense, but that does not mean he is pro-war. At TEDxAmsterdam he explains how his career is one shaped by a love of peace, not a desire for bloodshed -- and why we need armies if we want peace.

Highlights from Peter van Uhm at TEDxAmsterdam
Why I chose a gun. Link to transcript

"[S]ometimes only a gun can stand between good and evil" (06:45)... "Why has violence decreased?" (09:38)... "[T]he spread of the constitutional state and the introduction, on a large scale, of the state monopoly on the legitimized use of violence -- legitimized by a democratically elected government, legitimized by checks and balances and an independent judicial system. In other words, a state monopoly that has the use of violence well under control." Read more

Injured on the battlefield, but not beaten | Captain Stephanie Verhoef | TEDxKMA

Peter van Uhm

Petrus Johannes Mathias "Peter" van Uhm (born 15 June 1955) is a Royal Netherlands Army general. He served as Chief of Defence of the Armed forces of the Netherlands from 17 April 2008 until 28 June 2012. He previously served as the Commander of the Royal Netherlands Army from 5 September 2005 until 13 March 2008.... Van Uhm's promotion to CHOD was accompanied by personal tragedy as, on 18 April 2008, his son First Lieutenant Dennis van Uhm was killed in a roadside bombing in Uruzgan, the southern province of Afghanistan.[3][4] A spokesman for the Taliban claimed that militants had known about his movements and had targeted him. The Dutch government rejected this claim. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said in The Hague: "Our information is that there is no indication of any link between this cowardly deed and the fact that it was the son of the defense chief."[4][5]. Read more

Wes Moore: How to talk to veterans about the war
TED, Published on May 23, 2014

Wes Moore joined the US Army to pay for college, but the experience became core to who he is. In this heartfelt talk, the the paratrooper and captain—who went on to write "The Other Wes Moore"—explains the shock of returning home from Afghanistan. He shares the single phrase he heard from civilians on repeat, and shows why it's just not sufficient. It's a call for all of us to ask veterans to tell their stories — and listen.

Emmanuel Bernadin: Why I believe that America should bring back the draft
TED, Published on Jul 5, 2016

Emmanuel talks about his experience joining the military, as well as, his experience coming home from war. The stories of so many veterans demand our attention. Our veterans deserve better.

History of the Tuskegee Airman @8:14 and the 100th Fighter Squadron, 332d Fighter Group