No Choke Hold in Eric Garner's Death; More Media Lies

Not All Neck Holds Are Chokeholds

Short (relatively) version

Recently when I wrote wrote, "Garner did not die of asphyxiation, he died of heart failure." the response was; Nowhere does the report mention heart failure, (with the two attached links) 
Chokehold Police Custody Cause of Death 
Autopsy: Police Chokehold Caused NYC Man's Death

I responded;

From your first link: "The medical examiner said compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner's positioning on the ground while being restrained by police...caused his death".

From your second link: "Asthma, heart disease and obesity were contributing factors in the death."

Both sentences indicate the factors of his death; but they did not say he died of asphyxiation (which is the manner of death from a chokehold). The term "chokehold" gets used quite a lot, but just because an officer uses a neckhold does not mean it is a "chokehold" that stops breathing.

Question: It may sound technical and it may sound like it's semantics, but if one hold is illegal and the other is legal, that is a big distinction.
Dr Baden: That's a distinction, but in this case, doesn't make a difference to me because when we're looking at the autopsy findings, the autopsy findings, whatever we call it, chokehold, headlock, there was enough pressure on the neck to prevent the blood flow .www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity...

In this case the neck restraint was described as restricting blood flow, not air flow; but air flow was restricted by Garner's positioning on the ground while being restrained by police; ie piled on top. It was a combination of factors that led to Garner's heart to stop. Since the heart stopping is the definition of death, not the cause, the medical examiner is looking for what caused the heart failure; and in this case is was a number of factors. The media however prefers a 4-5 word headline and 2-3 sentences in the body of the article glossing over a 27 page medical report;  they just throw out "He Was Killed By Chokehold," without explaining or going into any detail what the medical examiner was actually describing. It is also apparent that the medical examiner uses the terms chokehold and neckhold (like Dr Baden) interchangeably; however the terms are quite different when it come to the culpability of the police officer.

With the pressure on Garners chest and the other contributing factors (ie asthma), positional asphyxia, which is far more common cause of death, would be the likely suspect; a lateral neck restraint that only restricts blood flow has never to my knowledge been declared a cause of death. It should be noted that while a bar arm choke hold (which can crush the hyoid neck bone and lead to asphyxiation) is against NYPD regulation, but a lateral neck restraint (aka a coradid restraint) is not. You will see in the video, the police turned Garner on his side after he was handcuffed; this is done to help prevent positional asphyxia, which generally occurs in combination with drugs or other contributing factors. Unfortunately for Garner it was to little, to late.

 If you watch the video, Garner is grabbed in a neck hold @ 1:21; @ 1:33 (12 seconds later) the officer releases his neck restraint to grab Garner's outstretched right arm, to pull it behind his back to handcuff him; as another officer is holding down Garner's head. This is also the first time Garner says "I can't breathe". By 1:57 (24 seconds later) Garner is handcuffed and laying on his side and no longer saying "I can't breath." So at worst, the police caused Garner to have trouble breathing for 24 seconds; at this point the person taping the incident is also saying Garner might be having a seizure. If this is an indication that he went unconscious, your still dealing with a person that went unconscious and in 36 seconds subsequently died sometime later. That's a long time with police officers grabbing at you, throwing you to the ground, piling on you and forcing your hands behind your back to be handcuffed, but it is hardly enough time to be suffocated even to unconsciousness. .

There is also a big deal made of the fact that Garner's death was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner. The reason for this is there are only five manners of death the medical examiner can use; Natural, Accident, Homicide, Suicide or Undetermined. Since Garner death was the result of an interaction another person(s) it is by definition a homicide; the same would be the case in a death resulting from self defense

Longer version with pictures

In response to the OpEd on the Eric Garner death at the hands of the police, Eugene Robinson from the Washington Post got a lot of facts wrong. The Garner Case's Sickening Outcome (there certainly was a sickening outcome, but it was from the media not the Grand Jury).  First, the police have a right to overcome resistance when making a lawful arrests and that includes non-compliance. There is also a big deal made of the fact that Garner's death was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner. The reason for this is there are only five manners of death the medical examiner can use; Natural, Accident, Homicide, Suicide or Undetermined. Since Garner death was the result of an interaction another person(s) it is by definition a homicide; the same would be the case in a death resulting from self defense.

A chokehold is not defined as restraining a person by the neck, but that is how the media is treating it. While not a chokehold (meant to compress the suspects windpipe if they struggle), what you actually see is a neck or head take down, where due to the height disparity between the officer and Carter, the officers hand slipped over Carter's windpipe for several seconds. Then you see the officer holding Carter in a head restraint where there was no apparent pressure on his windpipe, so there was no chokehold. A classic chokehold (more properly called a "bar arm" neck restraint), is when the officer places his forearm across the suspects neck with one arm, grabs the subjects shoulder or his own bicep, then places the other arm behind the subjects head, holding the back of the head with an open hand (see below).  The reason choke holds have been banned is they put pressure on ones neck over the windpipe, that can result in tissue damage and/or broken neck bones, which in turn can cause swelling around the windpipe resulting in asphyxiation; however the coroner also found no damage to Garner's neck bones or windpipe, so the finding seems cryptic at best. I think someone should question the coroner to determine, if there was no damage to his neck bones or windpipe, how did a compression on his neck cause his death? I have sat in on numerous autopsies so I have some idea how "cause of death is determined", and this simply makes no sense.




On the other hand, there is another neck restraint that does not put any pressure on the windpipe,   called a "lateral vascular neck restraint", where the officer holds the suspect's neck, with the crook of his arm at the windpipe, so there is no pressure on the front of his neck.

With the Garner's arrest you see the officer holding Garner's neck more in line with a lateral vascular neck restraint.

While it's ambiguous whether there was any real pressure on his windpipe, the hold on Carter's neck lasted from about 1:21 on the video until 1:34 (13 seconds) when the officer released his neck restraint to grab Garner's outstretched right arm, to pull it behind his back. The coroner finding was the deadly encounter Thursday did not damage his windpipe or neck bones Autopsy says Garner Had No Throat Damage. However that was followed up with, compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner's positioning on the ground while being restrained by police caused his death. Garner's acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were contributing factors. Timeline Eric Garner Chokehold Death Arrest  Besides, by the time Mr Garner was saying he could not breath, he was no longer being held in a neck restraint; the officer had released his hold on Mr Garner's neck to grab his free hand. Another officer was pinning Mr Garner's head on the ground when he was calling out.

The video, which captured the moments leading up to Garner’s death, showed the 350-pound man saying “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe,” as Pantaleo placed him in a chokehold and wrestled him to the ground. Garner died of a heart attack on the way to the hospital, according to officials. Garner’s death was ruled a homicide by the New York City Medical Examiner, which identified the cause of death as “compression of the neck” as well as complicating health factors, such as Garner’s weight and asthma. New York state law defines homicide as “conduct which causes the death of a person.” No Indictment with Cop Chokehold death So what the medical examiner is saying is the neck compression caused Garner's heart attack. But since there is no way a neck compression by itself can directly cause a heart attack, the medical examiner is saying the activity surrounding the "neck compression" caused the Garners heart to stop. Again I do not dispute this at all. What I question is the media stating Eric Garner was killed by a choke hold, which he was not. An initial autopsy report shows no damage to his neck bones or windpipe. The likely cause of death (was) a heart attack, precipitated by the arrest, chokehold and takedown. Garner weighed 350 pounds and had chronic asthma, diabetes and sleep apnea."  Eric Garners Death


It appears is was the the indirect stress on Garner's heart from the police overcoming his resistance, that caused his heart to fail. The point being that even if a choke hold was used on Eric Garner (which, while being against NYPD regulations, is not illegal) it caused no damage. There is a huge difference between a suspect, due to a heart condition, dieing of a heart  failure as the result of a confrontation with the police, and the use of a choke hold directly casing the death by asphyxiation; to say that compressions on the Garner's neck caused his death, is a cryptic and dishonest finding that was meant to be misinterpreted for political purposes.

Next there is the numerous "I can't breathe"  statements from Eric Garner. The primary problem with this is, if someone is saying they can't breathe, the very action of them speaking means they are breathing. There are several reasons that Garner would have felt like he couldn't breath that has nothing to do with the police officer's head restraint; what was more relevant were the police officers stacked on top of him. First Garner was asthmatic and asthma attacks can be brought on by stress and/or physical activity. Also, when an overweight person is restrained with both hands pulled behind their back, it expand their chest, making breathing more of a chore; further if a handcuffed person is placed face down on the ground, the additional pressure on their chest makes breathing even harder. In the past there has been an attempt by defense attorneys to claim this position can cause something called "positional asphyxiation"; however this has never been medically verifiable.  In the video of Garner's arrest, you see once Garner stops resisting and is handcuffed, the officer turns Garner on his side; this is per the officer training to err on the side of caution regarding "positional asphyxiation."

In essence you have a lawful arrest gone bad that resulted in the tragic death of the suspect; but it was not due to any improper actions by the NYPD. But like the Brown slogan that never occurred (Hands up don't shoot"), the  headlines saying that a, "NYPD Chokehold" killed Garner is another fairytale, designed to sensationalize these incidents and inflame racial tensions. The reality is bad things can happen when you resist the police, so it is best in the vast majority of cases to respect the law and comply.

edit: In an interview Dr Baden who analyzed the NY medical examiners office said, ... "After he (Garner) loses consciousness, he still breathes for a few minutes -- before his heart stops." but Dr Baden seems to contradict himself in the interview. Dr Michael Baden Offers Insight Into the Death of Eric Garner

Baden: But I think the autopsy itself -- the medical examiner did a great job on this. There's 27 pages in the report. And the female (Medical Examiner), she found that there were 10 hemorrhages on the inside of the neck, in the muscles of the neck, petechial hemorrhages in the eye, hemorrhage in the tongue. And those are all evidence of neck compression. You're right, chokehold has many different meanings in all. What we're concerned at autopsy is was there pressure on the neck. In this statement Baden describes damage to the inside of Garner's neck, but makes no mention of his windpipe or the hyoid bone, which is almost always broken when a person is choked.

Question:   It may sound technical and it may sound like it's semantics, but if one hold is illegal and the other is legal, that is a big distinction.
Baden: That's a distinction, but in this case, doesn't make a difference to me because when we're looking at the autopsy findings, the autopsy findings, whatever we call it, chokehold, headlock, there was enough pressure on the neck to prevent the blood flow ... that you talked about, to prevent air flow, and pressure on the chest and face, so that when he's saying, I can't breathe, he's telling the truth...And he died of not being able to breathe.

In the final analysis,  Dr Baden makes the distinction between the pressure on Garners body, which   made it hard to breath and the pressure on his neck that interfered with blood flow (not the damage from a chokehold. And while Dr Baden says  "he died of not being able to breathe". This seems to conflict with the following statement,  "After he (Garner) loses consciousness, he still breathes for a few minutes -- before his heart stops." The most likely meaning is the pressure on Garner's neck may have rendered him unconscious, while the pressure on Garcia's body, exacerbated by his asthma and heart condition, caused Garner to have a heart attack.

Ferguson; Black Racism Subjugates the Black Community

Those that make a living convincing blacks they are forever subjugated by a racists society, are the very cause of their subjugation. The overriding issue expressed by those of the vocal black community is the system is not doing enough to cater to the frustrated people of color; never mind that catering to a mob is not the job of our criminal justice system. But the frustration is actually caused by the so called activists (or advocates; your choice) that stated from the beginning, that the white police officer Darren Wilson is guilty of killing a black man Michael Brown, who was giving up; and if not he should be tried anyway because he represents past wrongs that the black community has had to endure. It makes no difference that as evidence was released to the public, it was fairly obvious that the original narrative was simply not going to hold up; but by then it really didn't matter. If the black man is not shown to be the victim of a racists officer, then the system is fixed. Further these advocates, intent on their race baiting and keeping the black man feeling forever the victim, continues the narrative that there is no other fair verdict than guilty; or in this case an indictment.

Now there is a call for a federal civil rights investigation and trial; but in order for a for a federal civil rights violation trial, there needs to be a racial component that was ignored in a grand jury or trial; a good example was the Rodney King beating; here race was pervasive with numerous racial epitaphs documented between the officers including their MDT "texting". However there was none in the Trayvon Martin case (even thought NBC perpetrated a fraud by manipulating a 911 tape); and here with the Michael Brown case, while the shooter was a white cop and the victim was a black man, there is no evidence that Martin's race somehow exacerbated the incident, because it clearly didn't.

While you wouldn't know it if you have been listening to the main street media, white racism is only a small percentage of what it was 50 years ago; unfortunately you can't say the same for black racism. The scenario that played out in Ferguson might have well been a scripted reality TV show, and  the scriptwriters are the usual suspects; the black racists, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. 50 years ago some southern Democrats led by LBJ determined to make blacks in the US a Democrat voting block. Their plan was to use the Civil Rights Act to make blacks dependent on government; and hence dependent on the Democrats. They also created the talking point that only the Democrats were "down for the black cause", while any one that argued against this black subjugation were white racists. Today, black racism is so prevalent is almost goes unnoticed. If there is an altercation between a black man and a white man, especially a white police officer, that of course the police officer is guilty of racism; but not necessarily because of the facts of the case, but because of race.Yet this is not viewed as racism, it is viewed as pay back. But this kind of pay back only makes sense where the rule of law does not apply. In this environment, to describe the attack by Michael Brown on Officer Darren Wilson that precipitated the shooting, is to demonize Michael Brown. To suggest that Michael Brown's own actions led to the shooting,  is sacrilege to the black racist world view (much as the killing of a white by a black could have no justification to a white supremest).

In the final analysis, as is usual with most these tragedies, it was Michael Brown that was in charge of how this incident was going to play out; he could have complied with the officers commands or, having multiple chances, he could have run away; but Michael Brown choose not to do either and he all know the result. But Michael Brown is simply a product of his environment. And his environment has been shaped by 50 years of being told that in racist America, they will never be successful. But by somehow putting their faith in race-baiting advocates and Democrats, that their lives will become better; and it never does. When the lack of a finding in the Darren Wilson Grand Jury was announced, there were the expected riots where blacks burned and looted their own community, victimizing themselves and those that ignored the status quo and started businesses. And until blacks decide that they have been feed a lie, that the system usually works and hard work will reap rewards, that they have been giving their vote to those that have done nothing to improve their standard of living, there   little doubt the will continue to reside it what has been called a Democrat run "majority-black suburban plantation".

President Obama Does Not Have the Authority to Ignore Immigration Law;

 To believe the President Obama has the authority to ignore Immigration law via prosecutional discretion, is to believe that  prosecutional discretion trumps the Constitution Article II's, Take Care Clause, which requires that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Prosecutional discretion is not an absolute privilege. To believe the President Obama has the authority to ignore Immigration law via prosecutional discretion, is to believe that  prosecutional discretion trumps the Constitution Article II's, Take Care Clause, which requires that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
There's no logical stopping point to the prosecutorial justification underlying President Obama's immigration policies. Presidents could simply decide not to enforce entire sections of the Clean Air Act, tax code or labor laws, or exempt entire categories of people — defined unilaterally by the president — on the assertion that those laws are "unfair" and there aren't enough resources to go around. The president would have power to grant a "privilege" or exemption from any federal law, defying the plain language those laws and the will of the people's Congress. Constitutional Limits to Prosecutorial Discretion

The projected executive action (EA) by President Obama, if signed, will be doing the illegal immigrants all ready in this country a great disservice. In previous cases President Regan and Bush used an EA  that addressed omissions in existing immigration legislation, that did not cover the children of illegal aliens that were allowed to stay in the country to pursue legal status. In other words the EA addressed issue in an existing law and unlike President Obama's EA, did not create a new law, which is unconstitutional. The EA also does not carry with it the same authority of a law voted in by Congress and signed by the President; this EA will simply be a directions to Homeland Security (via prosecutional discretion) to stop deportations of illegal immigrants already in the country, but prosecutional discretion does not legalize a violation of the law, it simply says in this specific case justice is otherwise served by not prosecuting a law breaker. This means that Obama's projected order does not change the fact that the illegal immigrants in the US will still be violating the law; so this security blanket could quickly be pulled out from under these same immigrants by a court order or the whim of the next President.  In this case illegal immigrants will continue to live in the shadows not knowing what is going to happen to them as there is no law behind the President EA.

Consider the President has already shorted ICE with the money and agents necessary for deportations. President Obama’s budget would rewrite the federal government’s interior immigration enforcement priorities, cutting funding for states that try to help enforce immigration laws and scaling back the number of immigrants the federal government will detain while they await deportation. He sent the proposal to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, at a time when congressional lawmakers are trying to write a broad immigration bill to bolster border security and interior enforcement, and to screen millions of illegal immigrants who could gain legal status under the legislation. All of that will cost money, but Mr. Obama’s budget cuts overall funding for the Homeland Security Department. It particularly trims interior enforcement initiatives, such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which has widespread support among members of Congress...Ms. Napolitano’s budget boosts spending by $1.1 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which includes the Border Patrol and officers who watch the ports of entry. But it reduces by nearly $650 million, or 11 percent, funds for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which handles interior investigations and deportations. Obamas Budget a Blow to Immigration Enforcers

There is also the effect the President's EA will have on blacks and other minorities. "As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, the wage of black workers in that group fell, the employment rate declined, and the incarceration rate rose. Our analysis suggests that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the black wage by 4.0 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 3.5 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost a full percentage point." Blacks Hit Hard by Increased Immigration 

Another issue not being reported on is how President Obama's Executive Amnesty will continue the  victimization of illegal aliens.  Since the majority of Americans are already against amnesty without even experiencing the inevitable hardships it will cause, the left will again allow the focus of their unpopular agenda to be scapegoated. When one considers that Americans have yet to feel the full effect of ObamaCare, which has never been popular to begin with, the Presidents actions now will likely guarantee the next president will have to run on revoking both the President Obama's EA on immigration and ObamaCare as well.  And of course that doesn't even consider the likelihood that once Obama's  Executive Amnesty is in place, he will announce another EA to give healthcare to the illegal aliens in the country, now protected from deportation. Whatever happens there will surely be a collective sigh of relief (that has not been heard since Woodrow Wilson's time) once this lame duck President is finally gone. 

Obama's Same Old Climate Game With the Chinese

Is the President Obama's climate change agreement really a game changer?  Well I guess that depends on how you define the current game we are playing with the Chinese and what new game we are  now supposed to play. China has agreed to set a target of reaching a peak in its carbon emissions by 2030; what is going to happen after that is vague and it's also non binding. The US-China climate change deal is terrible On the other hand, The President Obama has offered up for the US pretty much the same plan he committed to after the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in 2009; to reduce carbon emissions in the US  17% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% below 2005 levels by 2030 Climate change policy of the United States his new deal with the Chinese the President would cut  US carbon admissions between 26 and 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. So it seems all the President has accomplished, is to give the Chinese (already the top carbon polluter) permission to build dirty coal fired power plants to their hearts content for the next 15 years , while the President continues to play his 2009 carbon emissions reduction plan game, which includes closing down clean coal power plants  ("Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,") here at home. Obama said energy costs will skyrocket with his cap and trade Sounds like President Obama's same old game to me.

Obama Prepares for Executive Amnesty; Orders 31 million Green Card Blanks

On of the best ways to discover what the Obama Whitehouse is up to is to review government solicitations "drafts"; this is the methods in which government entities gets quotes for services.  Below a solicitation for what is commonly refereed to a Permanent Resident Alien Green Cards.

Consumables
Solicitation Number: HSSCCG-14-R-00028
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Office: Citizenship & Immigration Services
Location: USCIS Contracting Office

USCIS Contracting will be posting a solicitation for the requirement of Card Stock used by the USCIS Document Management Division. The objective of this procurement is to provide card consumables for the Document Management Division (DMD) that will be used to produce Permanent Resident Cards (PRC) and Employment Authorization Documentation (EAD) cards. The requirement is for an estimated 4 million cards annually with the potential to buy as many as 34 million cards total. The ordering periods for this requirement shall be for a total of five (5) years. www.fbo.gov/index   However part of the Draft was subsequently expunged after it was reported by Breitbart (but still available here "In addition, the Contractor shall demonstrate the capability to support potential “surge” in PRC and EAD card demand for up to 9M cards during the initial period of performance to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements."

So President Obama's Department of Homeland security is planning on a surge of 4-9 million aliens a year (or 34 Million over 5 years) that will be receiving Permanent Resident Cards; this will increase the population of the US by about 10 %.  A USCIS official told MailOnline on Monday that the draft was published 'in case the president makes the move we think he will, obama-readies-executive-order-illegal-aliens The President Obama's Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the solicitation draft, he first responded that questions about the draft was a “relatively clever way” of trying to predict Obama’s decision". When pressed further Earnest made the ludicrous comment “You would have to ask the DHS about orders of green colored papers that they’ve ordered?” What? President Obama, through his official representative has reached a height of hubris never seen before in Presidential politics. Even the press corp sat stunned with one reporter shouting “Don’t be absurd with us!” replied White House CBS reporter Major Garrett. “That’s not just an ordinary piece of paper it’s central to what the president has promised in public to do" White-House-Order-For-Surge-of-Immigration-ID-s-For-Ongoing-Operations

So what would the affect of an additional 34 million amnestied immigrants. According the  Center for Immigration Studies, "Based on the 1986 amnesty, we estimate that incomes for uninsured illegal aliens would rise modestly after legalization, leaving 3.1 million (out of 3.4 million) uninsured illegal immigrants qualified for Medicaid".. "The estimated cost of providing Medicaid coverage to 3.1 million amnestied illegal immigrants would be $8.1 billion annually." So not counting the surge of patients that would probably leave state Medicaid systems overwhelmed and impossible to utilize, an increase of even 31 million amnestied immigrants would cost an additional  $81 billion a year. Further since, " During the budget period 2014-2019, in which Medicaid expansion takes effect, covering 3.1 million amnestied immigrants would conservatively cost taxpayers $48.6 billion"; an increase of 31 million amnestied immigrants would cost $480 billion over 5 years . medicaid-costs ; While I remain very skeptical of Liberal conspiracy scenarios, it is difficult not to equate President Obama's amnesty plans to the; Cloward–Piven strategy that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". Cloward–Piven

It is also common knowledge that the electorate does not want President Obama's Executive Amnesty plan by a wide margin 63% to 22%; but the issue is much larger than that. President Obama himself has stated "There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.“ President Obama has said that if congress doesn't act on immigration, he will; ignoring the point that it is red letter illegal. Not only would this executive action not conform to the appropriate role as President, it would also be a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers. So President Obama knows that his Executive Amnesty  is a violation of his office and extremely unpopular, so just in case there a few voters that would not vote for a Democrat if the President goes through with his Executive Amnesty, he is waiting until the mid term election has passed; this and other political decisions based on the unpopularity of his policies, President Obama will surely go down as the most liberal and blatantly political President the US has ever known. 

The Fallacy of "Steady State Economics"

A recent letter to the Santa Cruz Sentinel Endless consumption or steady state economics? brought up the term "steady state economics", which is another attempt to re-brand collectivism as a controlled economy that would balance population with available resources;

Patricia Rayne's tongue-in-cheek letter Oct. 11 points out that current economic policy depends on ever-increasing consumption of goods and services. This requires over-population to produce labor and markets for economic expansion. The result is exponential population growth, over-crowding, famine, pollution, exhaustion of natural resources, global competition for remaining resources, climate disruption, species extinction, dangerous disparities between rich and poor.
However, there are other efficient economic models.
Ability to continue our rapacious consumption was doubted in 1798 by Malthus, later by John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes. Economists, including Herman Daly, Goergescu-Roegen, Boulding, Schumacher promote the model of limited economic growth known as "steady state economics." This posits stable or mildly fluctuating population and consumption of energy and materials. Birth rates equal death rates, population migration equals available resources, investment equals depreciation. Too complicated for a letter to the editor, this practical idea deserves examination and perhaps implementation in Santa Cruz, where constant expansion makes developers rich and diminishes quality of life.
— Grace Gerbrandt, Santa Cruz

 Once again, theories based on "steady state economics" requires a closed government controlled economy (the concept of a closed, state directed, quasi-private ownership, economy has it's roots in German fascism) under the umbrella of collectivism (the current terms for this is world governance via sustainable design or sustainable development), that historically implode (collective economies are notoriously inefficient) leaving millions destitute or worse. Karl Marx stated the Bourgeoisie class needed to be, " swept out of the way and made impossible". While he meant this figuratively, Stalin, Mao and Pot did not. The issue with the idea of government economic and population control is how well it fits into the Eugenics theme of eliminating the useless eaters as decided by the political elite. This theory was very popular by the likes of George Bernard Shaw, Teddy Roosevelt, Julian Huxley, Charles Darwin, HG Wells, Woodrow Wilson, George Orwell, Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes (co-founder of planned parenthood with Margaret Sanger).

With capitalism, the reason economic expansion does not requires over-population is because the nature of capitalism is to use the same resources to produce more and with greater efficiency; in other words, true open market capitalism (not the no-fascism we see growing today) does not need more consumers, it creates workers that have more money to continually consume more. OTOH, the current collectivist societies in the world are the worst polluters on the planet. We also know that education and consumerism results in lower population levels, while poverty increases population levels; this with the exception of US Hispanics ( primarily due to immigration), all other races in the US are not reproducing enough to maintain their numbers. It's interesting to note while blacks in the US live in greater poverty than any other race, they still don't reproduce enough to maintain their numbers. This is primarily due to half of all black pregnancies ending in abortions; it's almost as though "steady state economics" and Eugenics zealots (along with Planned Parenthood, whose founder was almost solely devoted to decimate black birth rates) planned it that way.

 FA Hayek's the Road to Serfdom compares capitalism to a planned economy, "The question is whether for this purpose it is better that the holder of coercive power should confine himself in general to creating conditions under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that they can plan most successfully (free market capitalism); or whether a rational utilization of our resources requires central direction and organization of all our activities according to some consciously constructed “blueprint (government planned/controlled economy).” The key difference between the two, is the "law" of supply and demand is instinctual to those that value liberty (a free people have/need a free economy), while forced equality (ie collectivism), is the definition of tyranny, is unnatural and requires decades of brainwashing, class demonisation and revisionist history; but will still fail, as it is inevitable that as the size and power of government increases, corruption and oppression will increase, until it collapses under it's own weight and the people take their country back.

As we have seen, Obama is fully immersed in another concept of central planning, which is enforced government infallibility, "Facts and theories must thus become no less the object of an official doctrine than views about values. And the whole apparatus for spreading knowledge— the schools and the press, radio and motion picture—will be used exclusively to spread those views which, whether true or false, will strengthen the belief in the rightness of the decisions taken by the authority; and all information that might cause doubt or hesitation will be withheld." 

All this was written over 60 years ago, yet reading it is quite chilling.

NOAA Caught Fabricating Past Temperatures for Climate Change

FA Hayek  explains the dogma of Obama's political beliefs such as Global Warming 60 years ago. "So he will readily embrace theories which seem to provide a rational justification for the prejudices which he shares with many of his fellows. Thus a pseudoscientific theory becomes part of the official creed which to a greater or lesser degree directs everybody’s action.
"Hayek, F. A. (2010-10-22). The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) . University of Chicago Press - A. Kindle Edition.

There is incredible political pressure that has been put on the proving Climate Change. This reached new levels when it was discovered that NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) had been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The unadjusted and historical temperatures show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming. Once this was brought to light, NOAA changed the temperature data back to the historical accurate numbers.The animated image below shows the changes which Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934.. noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/ 

One of the vehicles used by Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) zelots has been the continued use of lies and fabricated information in an attempt to prove that MMCC exists to a point that there will be long range negative effects. Even the choice of C02 being the main culprit is not based on any empirical evidence, but the simple fact that if MMCC  exists, C02 is the only greehouse gas that man creates in any quantity. There has never been any evidence that C02 traps heat, only constantly stated mis-information presented as Proxy or Observational science that the rest of the scientific community views at not being valid descriptions of the scientific process. Observational Science

When Al Gore first took the helm as chief zealot of MMCC, he would consistently show the C02 heat cycle of the ocean in reverse. It is excepted science that  as the Ocean warms, it releases C02, however Gore would present his MMCG argument showing as C02 levels increased, the ocean warms; something he still does to this day gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment. It has also been completely ignored that none of Al Gores predictions of Catastrophic Climate Changes has come true, and neither has any of the thousands of computer models that were programmed to show climate change accelerated by an increase in C02. Great Global Warming.  And while  C02 levels have been increasing steadily (ie 315ppm in 1958 to 400 ppm today), there has been no global warming in almost 19 years. global-warming-pause-hits-18-years

The issues with these Climate Change computer models was voiced back in the 1970s. In 1975 National Academy of Sciences set up a "U.S. Committee for the Global Atmospheric Research Program" which included many top scientists. Academy reports and other scientific pronouncements... pointed out that predictions of future warming were based mainly on computer models, which were grossly oversimplified and relied on poorly measured numbers. Some scientists held that if the world was currently warming (which they doubted), that was just part of a natural cycle. Or the climate system might fluctuate in a purely random way, regardless of what humanity did. History of Climate Change and the reality is this remains as true today as it was 40 years ago; the main issue being that their are so many variables to Climate Change, that computer models must use significantly oversimplified data , usually pointed in one direction or another to produce and usable result; and  predictions of future warming  based on these computer models have been universally wrong.


There have also been study after study that were released with much fan fare that supposedly proved MMCC, only to be debunked as fraudulent once the methods of the author was discovered; the two major studies that fall into this category are Michael Manns Hockey Stick Graph and the 97% consensus on MMCC. The so called 97% consensus of climate scientists that man made climate change is a danger to the planet, is not only false, it may be a fraud as well. You see the survey of climate scientists was not a survey at all; in fact no scientists were ever contacted. Instead, the  Cook survey was a search engine,  that was so faulty it wrongly showed a 97% consensus. However when the scientific papers were actually reviewed and their authors contacted, it turns out the majority  were neutral on the subject of man made global warming; many also contacted Cook and asked to be removed from the survey. The survey was so faulty that in reality of 3%  respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming', meaning the 97%  is actually the opposite of; the presented consensuses. 97% consensus on Climate Change a fraud

Michael Manns "hockey stick" graph has been discounted for two main reasons. The first was he treated proxy data as if was empirical evidence, and he refused to disclose his data so there is no way it could ever stand up to any scientific scrutiny. " When one talks about proxy data, it means such things as tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments; these and other proxy data is open to interpretation and requires a huge amount of repetitive results to be even be close to being reliable; it was the tree ring scientists (dendrochronologists) that complained about the Manns lack of cross-check tree ring records with other trees in the area to confirm his data. There is also the fact that though tree ring data was taken from hundreds Siberian samples for the hockey stick graph, only one was used; now refereed to as "the most influential tree in the world."  Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world

 "The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs "in the state pen, not Penn. State."  In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science." michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse

Obama was Right to Vacillate on Syria

Leon Panetta, stumping his new book, has blamed Obama for not starting a bombing campaign against Syria after the use of chemical weapons (crossing a "red line"). What is interesting is Obama's actions in Syria may have been the one bright area in his disastrous Presidency. Staring with the assault on Libya, the US and Saudi Arabia armed al Qaeda soldiers that were the enemy of our enemy at the time. The army of terrorists moved to Syria to join Syrian rebels and received more training and guns, much of which were smuggled out of Benghazi through Turkey. It was at this point that Obama parted from the neo-cons, doubting that any further arms given to the Syrian Rebels could be kept from the al Qaeda forces. After the chemical weapons attack that was at once blamed on the Assad regime,  Obama held back on a US bombing campaign against Syria. This allowed a UN Commission investigation; the end result of which, showed it was highly likely the chemical attack was a provocateur attack by the anti-Assad al Qaeda/ ISIL terrorists. Of course with the pulling back from hostilities against Assad, the al Qaeda army reformed as ISIL and swarmed into Iraq.

The end result was allowing Russia to intervene and start the process of removing the stock piled chemical weapons from Syria without any further bloodshed. The true loser here is Saudi Arabia, who counted on the US to remove Assad from Syria. This also showed the absurdity of the propaganda that Syria was a breading ground for these Sunni Islamic terrorists, when in reality it has been Saudi Arabia from the beginning (as I said before there is no difference in the allegation that al Qaeda was in Iraq and that al Qaeda is in Syria; they are/were both a pretext to invade and overthrow sovereign countries for NATO's political purposes); it seems to have been completely forgotten that  Osama bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian as were 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11. There is also the fact that is was Leon Penetta as secretary of Defense whom informed Congress that his military takes it's orders from NATO, so the idea that our Commander in Chief might hold back his neo-con agenda must have been infuriating.

Enough with President Obama's Lies

The Presidents lying started with, "If you want your Doctor you can keep your doctor and if you like your plan you can keep your plan" (and it will save families $2400 @year but now costs an average of $2400@ year more); then it was 20 years in Jeremiah Wright's church and he never heard anything racial or anti-American. He was going to end partisan politics; he said the current gun laws are enough, but has since argued for more restrictive laws including reinstatement of the federal assault weapons ban that by his own words is only symbolic; do we really need an attack on the second amendment taken solely in the name of symbolism? Obama said he believed in the sanctity of a one woman one man marriage and now pushes for anything but. Obama pledged not to hire lobbyists and pledged to participate in the public financing system, then opted out and spent more money than has ever been spent on a single candidate. The President chastised prior Presidents for military action taken without the consent of Congress, yet has never asked Congress for consent in an ongoing series of military campaigns. There is also the fact that President Obama castigated Republicans, who he says have policies that enriches the top 1% - 10%, which causes wealth disparity (aka wealth inequality). Yet for 6 years he has done nothing to stop the Federal Reserve from loaning  money at 0%, which is they key reason the rich are pouring money into the stock market that continues it's upward spike causing greater wealth in equality , while the middle class is still dealing with the loss of 10 years of equity as a result of the 2008 sub prime bank melt down.

Obama and the White House swore to the American people that attack on Bengazi was because of a video and that we had al Qaeda on the run. The President has been heard to say Syria is a breading ground for al Qaeda, yet the Syrian rebels fighting the Assad regime are mostly al Qaeda (claiming a connection between Syria and al Qaeda is exactly the same as the claiming a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, both are a dishonest pretext for war). The US armed these Syrian rebels with arms captured in Libya. Al Qaeda has now regrouped under the name of ISIS/ISIL and with weapons and training given to them by the US and other NATO members, and now they have invaded Iraq. Now we hear Obama say his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper gave him bad intelligence on ISIS/ISIL (of course this is the same person that said the Muslim Brotherhood was non-secular and lied to congress about the NSA with the "least untruthful" lie he could think of), so like Jeremiah Wright, Clapper gets thrown under the bus (and there are so many more!).

Hopefully the American people will realize in the next election that all these lies and violations of the Constitution would not have been possible without a co-dependent Democratic Senate. This may be the case as Nancy Pelosi seems to only come out to declare the end of the Republican party, when she fears the Democrats may be routed..

Windows 8 Activation error code #0xC004C003

Recently my son's HP Envy M6 laptop computer with Windows 8 received a message that the Activation code was being blocked and I had to buy a new activation code (IOW a new retail version of Windows 8); the activation error was #0xC004C003. The computer had been bought from Best Buy about 2 1/2 years ago. I was finally able to track down the problem, which was the fault of Best Buy, but it was not the result of any help from them. Had I not had a cursory knowledge of Windows Operating Systems  software, I doubt the problem would has been fixed. I first check the tech forums for a fix and found nothing. I contacted Microsoft and they advised me to take it back to Best Buy, which I did.

The Tech at Best Buy first tried to say it wasn't a warranty problem, because it was a software issue (the computer had a 2 year extended warranty for hardware). At this point I explained (a little too forcefully says my son) that since they had loaded the software and now Microsoft had blocked the Activation code, Best Buy had apparently violated Microsoft's Licensing Agreement, and it was their  responsibility to supply me with a working OS. The Tech wrote up the repair and advised they may may have to re-install the software. I tried to explain that simply reinstalling the same OS Software would not fix the problem, however I let them have a go at it anyway, figuring they had to go through the process before they started looking elsewhere. After a few days I received a phone call from Best Buy saying the re-install did not solve the problem so there was nothing they could do; they advised me to contact Microsoft again or HP. Prior to picking up my sons computer I re-contacted Microsoft and finally got the low down on my problem.

In order to explain what the problem was, I will need to explain a little of how Windows OSs are activated. Generally you can load a Windows OS from a variety of sources, but it is usually the Activation Code (sometimes called the COA, or Certificate of Authenticity) that determines whether you will have a successful activation of the Windows OS (ie Windows 7 or Windows 8) ; this code is series of 5 alphanumerical, 5 digit groups of numbers separated by dashes; xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx. The two main versions of a Windows OS is the OEM version and the retail version. The OEM version is sold by Microsoft to companies that mass produce computers; OEM software is only supposed to be used by the manufacturer for the original OS and not to be used as an Upgrade, which entails the loading of a retail version. Windows gives a big price break to computer manufacturers on the OEM software; usually half the price (or less) of their retail software. Although, as I said before, this OEM software is not to be used buy any entity, other than the manufacturer, and only to install the initial operating system, there is a thriving business selling OEM software on sites such as ebay. Prior to Windows 8, there was a good  chance that these OEM activation codes would work. When I checked the bios of my computer I saw the OEM software was Windows 7. When the computer was bought, Best Buy upgraded it with Windows 8 (You can probably see where this is going). For years now Microsoft and large computer manufacturers have been using a OS embedding technology called "SLIC" (software licensing description table), where a digital signature of the OEM software is embedded inside the BIOS by the manufacturer. This along with Windows 8 new Activation software, Microsoft can identify if someone is trying to, or has upgrade their computer using an OEM  Activation Code and blocks the code if that is the case. And this was the case.

I returned to Best Buy and asked for a manager. I explained the above and the manager immediately agreed to load a retail version of Windows 8 (actually 8.1) on my sons computer. While my problem appears to be solved, this should be news to those that have used OEM software in the past for anything other than the initial OS , that Windows 8 is different. So if you are getting the Activation error code #0xC004C003; this is most likely why. 

Is President Obama a Sunni?

Why is President Obama  so intent on destabilizing the Middle East (and Libya) while  fighting along side the extremist  Sunnis? So far he as destabilized Libya, now in controlled by al Qaeda, destabilized Egypt were the President stood up for the Sunni extremist Muslim Brotherhood and now all that's needed for the Sunni Caliphate is the capitulation of Syria. The US assault on Syria is an interesting campaign of retribution, propaganda and the US unholy alliance with (Sunni) Saudi Arabia.  A year ago President Obama  armed and trained (Sunnis) al Qaeda fighters, calling them Syrian Rebel  fighters; known today as  ISIS or the Islamic State. Prior to the Syrian assault, the US and Saudi Arabia consistently blames Syria for allowing terrorists training camps. This was quite the absurdity   as Saudi Arabia probably funds over 90% of the radical Sunni terrorists in the middle East (9 out of 15 of the hijackers on 9/11/2001 were citizens of Saudi Arabia).

When chemical weapons were used on civilians and Syrian soldiers during this assault on Syria, the US was quick to blame it on Assad; with some very questionable evidence and reasoning. However is was thought almost from the beginning that the use of poison gas would only benefit the Syrian Rebels; it was confirmed later by a UN investigation that radical Sunni jihadists in the Syrian Rebel army had gassed their own people in  an agent provocateur act to create international condemnation of Assad. Then there is the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of U.S. ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. While it was strategically a US disaster, there is also evidence from numerous sources that confiscated Libyan weapons were being stored in Benghazi by the CIA (there were 31 CIA agents in Benghazi at the time the US embassy was attacked) to arm the Syrian Rebels The Real Benghazi Story ;

It appears the attack occurred when a local al Qaeda wanted the guns for themselves and swarmed the embassy and annex building and seized the weaponry; this is the reason there was so much misdirection form from the White House, trying to create an alternate explanation. When the US followed the Russian lead, ending the assault on Syria, to allow Assad to turn over his chemical arsenal, Saudi Arabia was furious as Obama had promised to remove Assad. The plan now, as I understand is the US is going to arm the Syrian Rebel fighters (of which over 90% are now loyal to ISIS) to fight ISIS?? Only if the endgame is to bring down the Syrian regime does this make any sense. Of course Syria has it's friends like Russia and Iran that may take exception to such an endgame. For right now Assad has been told not to fire on US fighter planes as they are not to attack Syria; for now.   

Six Years Later; Did Bush Crash the Economy?

Over and over the blame Bush Liberals repeatedly excuse Obama for not taking ownership of the economy or even his own policies. You still hear that Clinton handed Bush deficit free economy and Bush's policies crashed the economy (granted after 7 years of relative prosperity). But again he need to go back to the Clinton years to understand the 2008 economic meltdown was years in the making.

The seeds of the great recession were sewn during the Clinton administration. In 1999, the Glass Stegal Act was repealed; the same year Fanny Mae under the control of CEO Franklin Rains (previously the Chairman of the US Office of Management and Budget under President Clinton) launches the American Dream Commitment (ADC) with a stated goal of pledging $2 trillion dollars to increase home ownership for 18 million American families.. At this time Fannie Mae was easing credit requirements for home mortgages loans in response to increasing pressure from congress. The largest mortgage house that pushed these sub prime loans was Countrywide, at the behest of Democrat Senator Chris Dodd. Barney Frank was the leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee from 2003 until his retirement, and he served as committee chairman when his party held a House majority from 2007 to 2011. The end result was the housing market collapsed because the borrowers of the sub-prime mortgages defaulted on their loans.

While conservatives do believe in reducing regulations, they also believes in fiscal responsibility; no fiscally response congress would pressure the housing market to give homes away; it was surely put in place by the Democrats and Franklin Rains cooked the books of Fanny Mae; Raines resigned in Dec 2004 when his numbers weren't adding up, it was determined he misstated over $6 billion in profits adding about $90 million to his bonuses. When it was discovered that home sales were significantly below what Raines had claimed, the result was congressional pressure to catch up, championed by Barney Frank.

As far as Clinton's balanced budgets, you have to remember first that the military was being down sized after Desert Storm and he spent immediately spent the entire projected peace dividend; he also used the Social Security surplus ($2.6 trillion that had accumulated the prior 10 years) to pay down the national dept (borrowed money that is just being returned now), Also due to his taxes on the rich, the US trade deficit plummeted and middle class debt skyrocketed The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton ; so once again a Democrat makes the middle class pay. Then Bush had to ramp up the military as a response to 9/11 adding back the money that Clinton used to balance his budgets. So yes, Clinton had a balanced budget, but he raided the cookie jar to do so, leaving Bush 43 holding the bag.

As far as Democrats and better Economic growth, economists have never been able to show that it is a result of Democrat polices. A recent study from Princeton is explained, "Blinder and Watson have shown that the president has little effect on the economy. Economic performance is determined by factors that are largely outside the control of public policy, or at least the kind of policy that is directly controlled by the Commander in Chief. Explaining the mystery of fast economic growth under Democratic presidents"; More than anything else it boils down to economic trends that are out of the Presidents control; "Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy." There is also a Technology benefit, again out of the hands of the President; "The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration.

Why Justice for Michael Brown? and 20/20 Hindsight

It has become obvious that like a reverse form of the Jim Crow laws in the old South, the Black Community believes  that any time a black is killed (especially if the black is unarmed) there is no defense; it is a defacto racist killing. Immediately after the shooting of black Michael Brown by while Police Officer Darren Wilson, the media aired the usual false narrative (the victim was not doing anything and the cop just murdered him), always initiated from a subjective source. This narrative is always extremely simplistic  and void of any real evidence; however it is quickly codified by the media, hungry to sell the narrative that shows the victimization of blacks. Then comes the black activist (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Eric Holder) to make sure black community have been properly race baited to turn on their own community.  Once this narrative is codified, it is used to convict the white police officer in the court of public opinion. What is usually missing from the narrative is always common sense. First, policemen like Off Wilson, a white police officer in a black community, has probably had numerous occasions where he could have justified shooting an unarmed black, but he was never done so; six years of service and he has never fired his firearm in the line of duty. So something different must have occurred.

There is also the second guessing of the officers actions; Why didn't he use a taser? Why didn't he use  rubber bullets; How come he had to shot so many bullets? Most of these questions can be answered by how short  time was compressed (how much time Off Wilson had to make any decisions) between the time the fight in the Off Wilson fought Michael Brown for his pistol and when Off Wilson shot Michael Brown dead. As a matter of fact, the fight over Off Wilson's pistol pretty much determined the sequence of evens afterward. If there is one thing that will trigger the fight or flight response in a police officer it is a fight to retain his firearm. In this case two bullets were fired and Off Wilson's eye socket was shattered during the fight; at this point I imagine Off Wilson  responded mostly out of instinct. (edit) Another subject that is rarely discussed, but known well by Police Officers and is a vital part of their training, is that a surprising number of Police Officers are killed with their own guns; about 8% There are no national statistics on how many times officers' guns are taken away. But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent. Officers Killed by Their Own Guns   (added 11.28.2014);


 Fight or Flight is the body's last ditch effort to save itself, which is fueled by adrenalin; Off Wilson's pulse  rate and blood pressure increased dramatically, he would loose some of his small motor skills, his strength is increased, his pain receptors will shutdown and he will experience tunnel vision as he zeros in on his perceived threat.

When  Michael Brown ran from Off Wilson and he (Off Wilson) exited his vehicle Off Wilson had a shattered eye socket and  had just experienced a life or death fight over his duty weapon; either would likely trigger fight or flight. As a result, Off Wilson probably did not realize the extent of his injury (due to fight or flight), but it is highly possible he was seeing double vision. It is also unlikely that he would have re-holstered his pistol. So pistol in hand as he pursued Michael Brown about 25 feet (according to witnesses) and yelled for him to "freeze!". Michael Brown may have stopped raised his hands and turned toward Off Wilson; whether he had his hands raized or not, he was taunting Off Wilson by saying something similar to, "You're are not going to arrest me" and "What are going to do; shoot me?" It was then Michael Brown apparently rushed Off Wilson.


One of the criteria of use of force is the size and pre-knowledge of their fighting ability of the suspect. Michael Brown was 604 390lbs,  Off Wilson on the other hand looks to be of average size, say 509-511 and average build. There is also the fact that just moments before, Off Wilson was in a fight for his life, as he and Michael Brown were fighting over his gun in Off Wilson's SUV. This means Off Wilson had pre-knowledge of Brown's fighting ability and his desire to disarm and possibly kill him (Off Wilson) with his own gun. Having this in mind one can only imagine what was going through Off Wilson's mind when Michael Brown suddenly rushed him. What we know happened was Off Wilson started shooting at Michael. When he a bullet actually struck Michael Brown is debatable. Contrary to most peoples belief system, unless a weight bearing bone is broken or a massive wound to the brain, bullets do not stop people. Michael Brown may have been struck early on or Off Wilson may have missed his first shots; it's unknown. If a person is struck with a fatal wound(s) that will cause him to bleed to death, it will take this wounded person 30 seconds to "bleed out"; during this time it is not unusual for the wounded person to continue their attack with no sign that they have been wounded, until they suddenly fall down dead. As mentioned before, the effects of fight or flight is a loss of some small motor skills and tunnel vision; which sometimes mean the shooter will loose the ability to hit any small targets, such as an arm or leg, that he might be aiming at. This is why the police are always trained to shoot "center of mass" as it offers the best chance of the shooter hitting his target.

If one wants to know why Off Wilson shot so many bullets, it is most likely because the first bullets he shot did not stop Michael Brown's attack. This was described by a witness: "The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him". So how many bullets does it take to stop a person attacking you? The answer should be self evident; as many as it takes to stop the attack. So the number of shots fired by Off Wilson is really irrelevant.

What has been obvious from the beginning, it seems the only entity interested in a vigorous investigation was the Ferguson Police Dept. Most of those politically posturing say they want "justice for Michael Brown;" the message is clear, I've already seen enough and Off Wilson is guilty."   This includes the most of the media (CNN  has been especially heavy handed with this), the Governor of Missouri,  Jay Nixon (who also said that a  "vigorous prosecution must now be pursued" in Michael Brown's death), the NAACP,the Brown Family' s Attorney Benjamin Crump (and chief  race baiter) not only demanded equal justice for Michael Brown also said "We will not accept three-fifths justice,"( a reference to the Three-Fifths Compromise in the US Constitution which had nothing to do with the comparative worth of black slaves and whites; this was even voiced by the legendary black activist Frederick Douglas," but has been used by many dishonest and unscrupulous black activist to forward a personal agenda ) . Eric Holder was the reason Ferguson PD waited so long to release the tape of Michael Brown robbery of the liquor store 10 minutes before Off Wilson's contact and also said he remembered being stopped for DWB (Driving While Black); again implying that Michael Brown to was contacted and shot because we was black.

The standard that Off Wilson needs to be judged is black letter law; Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (a court decision drummed into every police officer in training) "The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight. The reasonableness must account for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving". But this has not stopped the media and activist from de-compressing what was perhaps 20 harrowing seconds in both the life of Michael Brown's and Off Wilson. This of course is exactly what Graham v. Connor says should not be done;  "a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight." and this is what needs to stop or their will be no justice for either Michael Brown or Off Wilson.

Ferguson, Missouri; All Evidence Points to Michael Brown as the Aggressor

 There is a certain absurdity to how the story line of the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri is being carried out. The initial story came from the person (friend) of Michael Brown, Dorian Johnson who was with Brown at the time of the shooting. The initial contact  and then re-contact of Brown by Officer Wilson is not really in dispute ( "Dorian Johnson, 22, told CNN that he and Brown were walking in the middle of the street when a white male officer pulled up and told them, "Get the f*** on the sidewalk." The young men replied that they were "not but a minute away from our destination, and we would shortly be out of the street...The officer drove forward but stopped and backed up, almost hitting (them) ...We were so close, almost inches away, that when he tried to open his door aggressively, the door ricocheted both off me and Big Mike's body and closed back on the officer... Still in his car, the officer then grabbed Brown by his neck..missouri-ferguson-michael-brown-what-we-know

There are varying accounts of struggle in Officer Wilson's police SUV after the second contact, what it resulted in a round being fired from Officer Wilson's gun that did not wound anyone. The following is the statement of  Dorian Johnson,   "I saw the officer proceeding after my friend Big Mike with his gun drawn, and he fired a second shot and that struck my friend Big Mike," Johnson told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "And at that time, he turned around with his hands up, beginning to tell the officer that he was unarmed and to tell him to stop shooting. But at that time, the officer firing several more shots into my friend, and he hit the ground and died." Another witness,  Witness Tiffany Mitchell started  filming the aftermath of the shooting and gave a similar story as Johnson,"The cop gets out of his vehicle shooting," Mitchell said. "(Brown's) body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turned around and he put his hands up. ... The cop continued to fire until he just dropped down to the ground, and his face just smacked the concrete." .  The problem with Dorian Johnson's and  Tiffany Mitchell's account, is on a video shot by Mitchell herself, an unnamed witness off camera, is heard giving a contradictory account.

Man 1: 'How’d he get from there to there?'
Eyewitness: 'Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck'
Eyewitness: 'But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him'
Eyewitness: 'Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him'
Man 1: 'Oh, the police got his gun'
Eyewitness: 'The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
(crosstalk)'
Eyewitness: 'Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing'
Man 1: 'The Police?'
Eyewitness: 'The Police shot him'
Man 1: 'Police?'
Eyewitness: 'The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running …  then something about he took it from him'


Read more: Conversation-recorded-bystander-just-moments-Michael-Brown-shooting-casts-doubt-claims-teen-surrendered-Officer

Interestingly enough, this account was almost word for word what was heard in radio interview with a spokesman for Off Wilson (Josie),  "He (Officer Wilson) pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery....he’s looking at them and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever...so he goes in reverse back to them"He (Officer Wilson)tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he said Michael did. And, then he opened the car again. He tried to get out. He stands up...'And then Michael (Brown) just bum-rushes him and shoves him back into his car. Punches him in the face and then Darren (Wilson) grabs for his gun. Michael (Brown) grabbed for the gun. At one point he got the gun entirely turned against his hip...and he shoves it away...and the gun goes off. 'Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’... stands up and yells, 'Freeze!..(then) Michael and his friend turn around. "And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him (again). He just started coming at him full speed...and, so he Officer Wilson) just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something." It has also been reported by the St Louis Dispatch that,“Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop’s version of events in shooting,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch crime reporter Christine Byers tweeted, without elaborating witnesses-say-ferguson-teen-attacked-cop-before-shooting

Within this storyline, several issues came up that where treated with absurdity by the forces that wanted to maintain the mythical storyline that Off. Wilson murdered Michael Brown while his hands were up. First there is the case of a video of Michael Brown committing a strong arm robbery, stealing a $50 box of cigars and assaulting the store owner. It was also established by the Chief of the Ferguson Police Dept, that Off Wilson did not know of the strong arm robbery that had committed by Michael Brown during the initial contact, so even if Michael Brown was walking with the box of cigars, Off Wilson would not have known that it was evidence of a robbery. A point of contention was the video was not released for 6 days later.  "But on Friday, police released the video that stoked outrage in Ferguson, with Brown’s family calling it “character assassination” and a smear campaign." feds-urged-police-not-release-michael-brown-robbery-video The reason the Michael Brown family called the video a smear campaign was two fold, #1, the video was not evidence as Off Wilson did not have knowledge of it when he first stopped Brown and #2 the police didn't release the video in a timely manner.

The argument against #1 is while Off Wilson did not know of the robbery during his initial contact, it was certainly evidence of the state of mind of Michael Brown, as Michael Brown surely suspected he was being contacted because of the robbery. Further the fact that Off Wilson drove passed Michael Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson, stopped and suddenly backed up to re-contact Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson, is consistent that at some point Off Wilson was dispatched to help with the robbery. It appears that Off Wilson left Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson ignorant of the robbery, but was then informed of the robbery via his radio. Realizing Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson matched the suspect(s) description(s), he backed up to re-contact them; on both accounts the video was vital evidence and not an attempt to smear Michael Brown's character.

The facts behind #2 is more straight forward, is was the US Attorney General, Eric Holder that held back the video,  The Department of Justice urged Ferguson police not to release surveillance video purporting to show Michael Brown robbing a store shortly before he was shot and killed by police, arguing the footage would further inflame tensions in the St. Louis suburb that saw rioting and civil unrest in the wake of the teenager’s death feds-urged-police-not-release-michael-brown-robbery-video

Below is a diagram of the wounds received by Michael Brown and there are no wounds in Michael Brown's back. "Dr. Baden said that while Mr. Brown was shot at least six times, only three bullets were recovered from his body. But he has not yet seen the X-rays showing where the bullets were found, which would clarify the autopsy results. Nor has he had access to witness and police statements. Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds*.“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”One of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone*. The last two shots in the head would have stopped him in his tracks and were likely the last fired.

..there is a contradiction in how Dr Baden's information has been released; most likely the reporters have been confused by Dr Baden's terms, wounds vs bullets vs shot.

 

The information from the below web link said the following. Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front. *If you take the information from these comments above,  one (bullet) that left at least five different wounds and One of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone* and compare them to this comment six shots produced numerous wounds there is a contradiction in how Dr Baden's information has been released; most likely the reporters have been confused by Dr Baden's terms, wounds vs bullets vs shot*. There are 5 wounds on Michael Brown's right arm and chest in the diagram. Assuming these wounds are the ones shown on Michael Brown's right arm in the diagram, it appears a single bullet entered at Michael Brown's left thumb, exited his forearm, re-entered at the lower biceps, exited the upper biceps and re-entered  Michael Brown's chest just above his left nipple; affirming Dr Baden's statements that one bullet caused 5 rounds. Add to that, the three wounds on the diagram show Michael Brown's wounds at his eye, cheek,  and chest, that Dr Baden said was also from one bullet and what appears to be a single wound to the top of his head, it appears that all nine wound were caused by 3 bullets. The report "Dr. Baden said that while Mr. Brown was shot at least six times, only three bullets were recovered from his body" But there is no explanation how this jives with Dr Baden's statements about the wounds.


Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution a police officer may only use such force as is “objectively reasonable” under all of the circumstances. The standard that courts will use to examine whether a use of force is constitutional was first set forth in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) and expanded by subsequent court cases. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight. The reasonableness must account for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

So the real question is, was Off Wilson justified in his shooting an unarmed man that came rushing at him and their is no simple answer. Michael Brown was 604 390lbs, by any comparison, a big man.  Off Wilson on the other hand looks to be of average size, say 509-511 and average build. It would have been shortly after this that Brown reportedly rushed Off Wilson.

There are numerous issues that can be taken into account as to the escalation of force, one is a substantial difference in size and/or strength. Brown was 604 390lbs, by any comparison, a big man.  Off Wilson on the other hand looks to be of average size, say 509-511 and average build. There is also the fact that just moments before, Off Wilson was in a fight for his life, as he and Michael Brown were fighting over his gun in Off Wilson's SUV (resulting in a round being fired in the vehicle); this would have given Off Wilson pre-knowledge as to Michael Brown's strength and fighting ability It has been learned the Off Wilson's eye socket was shattered as a result of the fight with Michael Brown, for possession of his pistol. Off Wilson  would also have knowledge that in their previous altercation, Michael Brown had tried to take away his duty weapon, meaning Michael Brown would probably try to take his gun away again. At some point Michael Brown probably had his hands up; however it most likely occurred after Michael Brown stopped and turned back toward Off Wilson, after running  away from him . Michael Brown was reported taunting Off Wilson, most likely he had his hands up and was asking Off Wilson similar to, "You're are not going to arrest me" and "What are going to do; shoot me?" If one accepts the numerous reports that at this point Michael Brown Add these up and it could be said that within the perimeters set up by Graham v. Connor, Off Wilson could articulate his escalation to deadly force as “objectively reasonable” under the circumstances judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.

One issue that also needs attention is what were the force options available to Off Wilson. #1 Rubber bullets; rubber bullets are generally fired from a specially designed 37mm/40mm weapon are not routinely carried in your average police vehicle and even if that was the case it would most likely be out of the immediate reach of the officer. #2  Taser; It is unknown if Off Wilson was carrying a Taser, but even if he was, transferring to a taser under these conditions would be contrary to his training. I Taser is not a substitute for a pistol to protect yourself from deadly force; is is an offensive weapon, not a defensive weapon. Off Wilson was obviously still holding his duty weapon which had discharged during the scuffle inside his SUV. Since Michael Brown had already shown he would try and take Off Wilson pistol, there are just too many things that could go wrong if he tried to protect himself with a Taser. Also, the effective range of a Taser (dependent on the model) is about 15 feet;( if Brown was 35 feet from Off Wilson, he would have also been out of the range of the Taser).

The fact is there is very little evidence to show that Off Wilson was doing anything more than reacting to the threat from Michael Brown and the only thing driving the "Michael Brown was shot in the back with his hands up" story are the racebaiters like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and Eric Holder; these racists activist always push the "you're a victim of the racists system and this is the result" theme. Even if they are eventually proved wrong (which is most the time) they have already let the smoke out of the box. This means any facts that are later derived from the investigation of the incident, that deviates from their original one side of the story, that paints the minority victim(s) as blameless, will then be paraded around, at an even a louder level of rhetoric, that there now a cover-up. This by the same advocates that live off the victim mentality that they sow and reap and profit by. It's this victim mentality that keeps minorities, especially blacks, dependent on government and continue the myth that they live in such a racist society they will never be allowed to prosper.

Edit: 8/19--"The black teen killed by a white cop in Ferguson, Mo., viciously attacked the officer as he sat in his patrol car, delivering a bone-crunching punch that shattered the cop’s eye socket, a report claimed Tuesday". po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown

According to the well-placed source, Wilson was coming off another case in the neighborhood on Aug. 9 when he ordered Michael Brown and his friend Dorain Johnson to stop walking in the middle of the road because they were obstructing traffic. However, the confrontation quickly escalated into physical violence, the source said..“They ignored him and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move," the source said. "They shoved him right back in, that’s when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face. missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source

There is No Arguing With the Left

One of the differences I see between liberal and conservatives is liberals seem to define themselves by the righteousness of their argument; it therefore becomes dogma. Anyone the speaks against liberal dogma is not just illknowleged as conservatives view those that disagree, but an enemy that must be de-humanized, demonized and extinguished; as Saul Alinsky promoted, your opponent must be treated with complete disdain with no redeeming value whatsoever. The left also needs to believe that they either speak for the majority, even though they represent a small minority and the only way the left makes has ever political headway is to promise for than they can ever deliver and then blame the right when it doesn't happen.

 In order for liberal dogma to be possible, they must selectively remember the past and perpetuate the lies told at the time ( If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it"). One of those I heard recently was the Bush was an AWOL draft dodger; this is repeating the lie from Dan Rather and the "Killian Documents". It turns out the documents were fabricated and than forged to appear to be from the personal files of then Lt. Bush's former commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. CBS first claimed the documents had been authenticated by experts until the very experts came forward saying the documents appeared to have been forged. The end result was CBS fired the story producer and three other CBS producers connected with the story were forced to resign; Dan Rather subsequently took an early retirement.

Then there is the Bush Patriot Act was a prelude to a Police State; this one is tricky because Obama started off where Bush ended (the Bush Patriot Act looks almost reasonable and tame, compared to that added to and re-authorized by Obama); it is Obama that (begrudgingly) re-authorized the NDAA giving him authorization for targeted assassinations and drone strikes (at the whim of the President, including American citizens outside the US),  'free rein for martial law' that has created the framework for a police state, and the government authority for the indefinite detention of US citizens. Obama also re-authorized the Bush Patriot Act, but unlike the Bush law, allows the NSA to monitor all our phone calls and computer activity, not just those to or from foreign countries. He also expanded the TSA to a "civilian national security force", "to achieve the national security objectives we've set." It should obvious to anyone that the government can not have a police state unless it has a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (as the US military). Add to this President Obama's detain for the US Constitution and it's separation of powers, and you can have a real Police State on your hands.

The only positive that has come out of the last 6 years of President Obama's rule is the electorate can see what liberal collective rule looks like. Who they turn to is yet to be decided, but the prevailing attitude will surely be, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men" Okay not really, but they will certainly be looking for the adults to take over.