2017 Oscars: President Trump Steals the Show

The most prominent figure at this year’s Oscar Awards Sunday night was not even there and was not nominated for anything. The consistent center of attention — all of it negative — at the awards ceremony was President Donald Trump. But considering the animosity the liberal establishment in Hollywood has shown for the president, that is not surprising. In fact, the 2017 Oscars could best be desribed as a Trump roast that was occasioanlly interupted by actors, producers, and directors receiving awards.

Last year’s awards were marked by speeches and remarks about racism and global warming. This year, President Trump was on the menu.

The Trump-bashing began almost as soon as the show began. Less than 20 seconds into his opening monologue, host Jimmy Kimmel (shown) said, “This broadcast is being watched live by millions of Americans and around the world in more than 225 countries that now hate us. And I think that is an amazing thing.” Kimmel’s remark — a clear reference to the mantra in Hollywood that Trump’s policies are drawing hatred from the rest of the world — was followed with, “I want to say ‘thank you’ to President Trump. I mean, remember last year when it seemed like the Oscars were racist? That’s gone — thanks to him.”

Continuing the trend of low-brow jabs at the president and his policies, Kimmel used the presence of French actress Isabelle Huppert to say, “On behalf of everyone here I would like to say we didn’t see Elle, but we absolutely loved it. You were amazing in that film and I am glad Homeland Security let you in tonight.” Kimmel’s pointed jabs at President Trump’s efforts to protect America from international terrorism — delivered in what passes for humor among the Hollywood elite — were punctuated later in the evening on a much more serious note when Iranian director Asghar Farhadi won Best Foreign Language Film for The Salesman. Rather than accept the award in person, Farhadi provided a prepared statement in which he said that he did not attend the awards ceremony “out of respect for the people of my country and the other six nations who have been disrespected by the inhumane law that bans entry of immigrants to the U.S.” And Gael Garcia Bernal used his time on the stage while accepting the award for best animated picture to make a statement about President Trump’s policies of protecting the southern border. “As a Mexican, as a Latin American, as a migrant worker, as a human being, I’m against any form of wall that wants to separate us,” Bernal said.

Of course, left out of these statements are the simple facts that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and Mexico has stricter policies regarding illegal border crossings than does the United States. But then the Hollywood elite — who make their fortunes by making movies that require the viewer to suspend logic — are not likely to let a few pesky facts get in the way of a good narrative. Particularly when that narrative is fueled by liberal politics.

Kimmel’s monologue included a fairly pointed jab at Mel Gibson, as well. Gibson, who is making something of a comeback since his life and his career went off the rails a few years ago, directed the film Hacksaw Ridge — about Desmond Doss, who was the first “conscientious objector” in U.S. history to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Hacksaw Ridge raked in nearly $160 million in the box office and was nominated for six Oscars including Best Director for Gibson, who was at the awards ceremony to hear Kimmel’s remarks about Trump not being able to unify the nation. Kimmel followed that with, “There"s only one Braveheart in this room, and he"s not going unite us either, okay?"

Hacksaw Ridge is the first film Gibson has directed since Apocalypto, which was released in 2006, the year of his infamous arrest. As Hollywood Reporter wrote of his nomination:

Gibson had become a Hollywood pariah following a DUI arrest in July 2006, when the Oscar-winning Braveheart director hurled statements about "f—ing Jews" at an officer. Within hours, the arrest report was leaked, and the industry turned a cold shoulder on Gibson"s awards-season contender Apocalypto.

Gibson publicly denounced his words and asked for forgiveness. Hacksaw Ridge marks his first directorial effort since Apocalypto.

Gibson did not win Best Director, but Hacksaw Ridge took both Best Film Editing and Best Sound Mixing. It was also nominated for Best Picture, but lost out to the politically correct Moonlight — a film described by the Verge as “a beautifully nuanced gay coming-of-age tale” that features depictions of lewd sex acts to which Kimmel jokingly refereed in his monologue. That a film about a non-violent war hero would lose out to a film celebrating sodomy is a sad commentary on the cultural values of the Hollywood crowd. But it is to be expected.

Riding on the anti-Trump sentiment that marked the evening, Kimmel ended his low-brow monologue by making a crass reference to President Trump’s famous early-morning tweets. He told the nominees, “Some of you will get to come up here on this stage tonight and give a speech that the President of the United States will tweet about in all caps during his 5:00 a.m. bowel movement tomorrow, and I think that’s pretty darn excellent if you ask me.” One can only imagine the outrage of the Hollywood crowd if conservatives had treated President Obama with that level of disrespect. Good for goose but forbidden to the gander.

But Kimmel’s anti-Trump remarks did not end with his monologue. Even while announcing nominations, he managed to work in ways to insult the president and his cabinet nominees, saying, “Doctor Strange was nominated for special effects — and also Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.”

Kimmel — not knowing when a bad thing has been played out — actually tweeted to the president live during the awards ceremony. He announced his intentions by saying, "We"re more than two hours into the show and Donald Trump hasn"t tweeted at us once and I"m starting to get worried about him." He then picked up his phone and while casting his screen to the large projection screen, tweeted, “Hey @realDonaldTrump u up?” He also continued to get some extra play out of an earlier joke about the feud between the president and actress Meryl Streep. During his monologue he had introduced Streep as “mediocre” and “overrated” — references to remarks Trump had previously made about her. When she stood to be recognized, he asked her if the dress she was wearing was “an Ivanka." After his first tweet, he then tweeted, “@realDonaldTrump #Merylsayshi.”

While the most apt words to describe the evening would perhaps be “childish” and “crass,” it is noteworthy that at an event designed to recognize the accomplishemnts of those present, President Trump — who was not even there — stole the show and was the center of attention.

Photo of Jimmy Kimmel: AP Images

Another Way to Fund Trump’s Wall: Interdict Drug Cartels’ Cash Flowing Into Mexico

With the announcement by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday that sites have already been selected to start building the wall across the country’s southern border came increased concerns about how it was going to be paid for. Said the DHS:

CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] is taking immediate action in response to the president’s executive order. We have identified locations near El Paso, Texas, Tucson, Arizona, and El Centro, California, where we will build a wall in areas where the fence or old brittle landing-mat fencing are no longer effective.

The Border Patrol is also in the midst of an operational assessment, which will identify priority areas where CBP can build a wall or similar physical barrier on the border where it currently does not exist….

CBP has identified funding [sufficient] to begin immediate construction and is working with the Administration in these efforts.

The executive order “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” dated January 25, was equally vague about where the money would come from. The secretary of the DHS, John Kelly, was ordered to “identify and … allocate all sources of Federal funds” for the wall’s construction. Following the DHS announcement on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer made passing reference to the question: “Right now, ICE and DHS in particular, as well as DBP, are looking at what this is going to cost.” That will be followed by “then figuring out how much can be handled through reallocation of resources and how much we can save maybe in other areas, but also work with Congress.”

Translation: The U.S. taxpayer will be paying for the wall, not Mexico, at least in the beginning, still leaving open the question of just where the balance of the estimated $20 billion construction costs will come from, exactly.

Some appears to be coming out of the DHS budget, currently at $41 billion. Some could be borrowed if Congress is amenable. Some could come from the budgets of the states most directly impacted by illegal immigration: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Some could come from some sort of as-yet-undefined “border tax” on imports from Mexico. Some could come from cutting U.S. foreign aid to Mexico. Some could come from funds illegals already in the states are sending back to their families in Mexico.

But according to John Cassara, all of this is way too complicated. Just ramp up efforts to enforce another executive order signed by the president on February 9, “Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking”:

It shall be the policy of the executive branch to … strengthen enforcement of Federal Law in order to thwart … illicit activities … for example: the illegal concealment or transfer of proceeds derived from such illicit activities.

Cassara knows what he is talking about. Retired after 26 years in federal law enforcement, he is one of very few to have been both a clandestine operations officer in the U.S. intelligence community and a special agent for the Department of the Treasury. Wrote Cassara in the Washington Times:

Half a decade ago, a 2010 White House study pegged the rough number [for the drug trade] at $109 billion annually. Today, that number is doubtless higher.

Because of the crackdown and money laundering laws, cartels are moving between $18 billion and $39 billion of the proceeds of that drug trade in the form of bulk paper money. Wrote Cassara, “The process has gone industrial — which is exactly why it is the right avenue for recouping the money needed to build the wall.”

Just interdicting 10 percent of the lower estimate would, according to Cassara, generate $2 billion: “In ten years, [even] without increased efficiency, we would have the $20 billion needed to fund the wall — and likely take a bite out of drug trafficking, drug trafficker wealth, and domestic addiction in the process. That is what casual observers would call a win-win-win.”

An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Related article:

Savings in Welfare Costs Could Pay for Trump’s Wall

3 Forgotten Ways The Pioneers Built Fires Without Wood

Image source: Library of Congress

I’m fortunate to call the windswept prairie of the Great Plains my home. If you get out of farm country, it’s just grass as far as you can see. In fact, there are still places nearly unchanged since pioneers first tried settling this area more than 100 years ago.

Although quiet and expansive, there are real challenges to living in the plains. This rings especially true for a person who pursues knowledge in woodcraft. One of the biggest barriers to settling the plains was the lack of timber. Historically, people all around the world have overwhelmingly depended on wood as a natural construction material. The lack of trees on the prairie was one of the biggest obstacles pioneers faced when they looked into the Great American Desert. Wood was, and is, such a central part of our life, especially when forging a living from the land. Lack of timber seemed to make settlement nearly impossible.

While most Americans during the mid-19th century looked at the prairie as an inhospitable land, there were already people living happily in this treeless expanse. An array of Native American societies were established, each developing strategies for living a life that depend on wood as little as possible. Adventurous mountain men and explorers had also learned these lessons the hard way. They, too, knew how to survive in a land devoid of such a pivotal resource. One thing everyone on the plains had to know was how to build a fire without using wood as a fire fuel.

The Life-Saving Water Filter That Purifies River Water!

Even today, we can take a page from their book and remember there are other excellent fire fuels besides wood. Here are three examples of resources you can burn when heavy timber may be in short supply:

1. Buffalo chips/cattle manure

Buffalo chips is a reference to the dried manure of buffalo that once dotted our grasslands. Once dubbed as “Plains oak”, buffalo chips were widely used as fire fuel for generations on the plains. When cattle were brought north, their manure also was collected for the same purpose. Both sources were a very common source of fuel, and actually offered several advantages to wood fires. For starters, in such a dry environment, buffalo chips don’t throw sparks like wood fires tend to do. Manure fuels smolder more than they actually burn. The smoldering actually helps control the fire, rather than constantly setting the prairie ablaze.

Image source: Pixabay.com

This smoldering characteristic also made buffalo chips ideal for burning in tipis and other natural shelters. Another advantage of using a fuel “cut by the cows” was the saved labor. Rather than spending hours cutting and splitting wood, people living on the plains simply gathered and stacked the chips. In a region so difficult to make a living, this saved labor would have been nice.

2. Woody shrubs

Although there is a lack of trees on the Great Plains, there are locations with an abundance of woody shrubs. Most prolific in my area are sagebrush and yucca. At times, these sources of fuel came in especially handy. One mountain man, Osborne Russell, kept a journal of his experience depending on sagebrush for fire.

Russell and a few companion’s horses had been run off, and the group was on foot. Back in those days, being afoot on the prairie was akin to a death sentence. They headed for an army fort they that lay across a sagebrush sea more than a week’s march. While making their way across the barren land, they carried little more than their rifles and basic gear. No blankets, no food, and none of the small comforts their rough lives knew. As they traveled, they shot buffalo when they came upon them and used the hides to sleep on. While caught in his sagebrush sea, a mix of rain and snow moved in upon the group. Russell’s account of the incident leaves no debate that the trip was miserable. After many, many cold and wet miles, the group finally safely walked into an army fort and survived the ordeal.

Along the way, though, the group needed to build a fire each day. With no wood in sight, they turned to a nearly endless source of fuel in the sagebrush. Russell noted that at times these fires consisted of no fuel larger than thumb size. Needless to say, it kept them alive in poor conditions.

Just 30 Grams Of This Survival Superfood Provides More Nutrition Than An Entire Meal!

Sage and other woody shrubs should not be overlooked for their potential as a fuel source. As with buffalo chips, small shrubs offer the advantage of keeping a fire small. Again, in a place that is so dry and windy, keeping your fire small is important. An old mountain man adage was “the bigger the fire, the bigger the fool.” By keeping the fire small, they not only limited the chance of spreading fire, but they saved labor and decreased their chances of being seen by those who meant to do them harm.

3. Animal fat

A final alternative fire fuel people utilized is animal fat. In the past, animals like bear provided not only meat for the larder, but fire fuel, such as for burning lamps. If the pioneers or Native Americans happened to be in an area devoid of animal manure or shrubs, fat would have been a viable option.

In my own experience, I’ve used raccoon fat as a fuel source while building a campfire. I can testify to its ability to put out some heat. A word of caution, though: Unlike the previously mentioned fuels, fat burns extremely hot and very fast. Just toss a bit of raccoon fat on the fire and step back. It is best used in small amounts; otherwise your fire could easily get out of control. Have a bucket of dirt on hand. (With a grease fire, water only would heighten the problem.)

Do you have any fire-starting advice? Share your tips in the section below:

Discover The Secret To Saving Thousands At The Grocery Store. Read More Here.

IFAK Training Video

Stewart Rhodes, Army Airborne Veteran, Yale Law School Graduate, OK Founder and President

Sheriff Richard Mack, Former Sheriff of Graham County, Arizona

John D. Shirley, Retired Duty Peace Officer - Houston, TX. National Lead Liaison to Peace Officers.

Jay Stang, Veteran US Marine Corps - Texas Chapter President

Jim Ayala, EMT Veteran, Oath Keepers Treasurer, Merchandise

Sgt. Maj. Joseph Santoro, Retired Army, infantry, EOD. OK National Operations NOC

Michele Imburgia, Texas State VP

Sheriff Denny Peyman, Retired Jackson County, KY Sheriff, OK National Peace Officer Liaison

John Kerriman, Current Missouri police academy instructor, police veteran, OK National Peace Officer/LEO Liaison

---

Birmingham Group’s Demand for Gun ‘Laws’ Shows They Really Have No Clue – About Anything

So why do these “common sense gun safety law” advocates have an unholstered handgun at a public demonstration?

“Birmingham organization proposes changes to gun laws, named for Gate City shooting victim,” AL.com reports. “Frank Matthews, President of the Outcast Voters League, spoke about the proposed Sheri Williams Mandatory Gun Changes Act, named for a woman who was killed in Gate City by a stray bullet in 2013. Williams was holding her 10-day-old baby as she was shot.”

That’s SOP for these types. Pick a high-visibility incident that pulls at the heartstrings. The object is to get people feeling, not thinking. And naturally, none of the gun laws being proposed would have made a bit of difference in this case.

Just as naturally, the obligatory opportunistic oath-breaking politician made sure to get his mug in front of the press conference cameras. State Rep. John Rogers used the coverage to make noises about “fashion[ing] a bill that’s passable.” Considering what they want, that’s not likely (at least until the vote in Alabama becomes overwhelmingly Democrat, something the “immigration” and “amnesty” crowd is working on).

Outcast leader Matthews could not resist showing off his big “but.”

“We’re not against gun rights… [but] demand accountability and responsibility of gun owners,” Matthews said. Here’s what he means by that:

• Mandatory gun registration- owner has registration card that lists all weapons


• No transfers unless done through a registration office


• New purchases must be picked up at registration office


• Mandatory gun safes; only registered owner will have combination


• Mandatory gun safety classes


• Open carry and concealed carry policies abolished


• Waiting period for gun purchase extended to three months to allow all paperwork to pass


• People under 21 prohibited from owning guns


• Extensive mental evaluation


• Mandatory liability insurance for firearms


• Required reporting of stolen firearms within four hours of discovery


• Ammo purchases made only for the caliber gun specified on registration

There’s no real response to such Intolerable Acts beyond “No. Your move.”

Obviously these people have even less of a clue about what a “right” is and what “shall not be infringed” means than they do about finding meaningful solutions to problems created by the sick symbiosis between their community and collectivist government. And while it would be tempting to start going through some of the self-perpetuating destructive choices that keep the cycle going, it’s the token concealed carry permitee and gunquisling who unintentionally illustrates the absurdity of it all.

“Robert Walker, president of a local neighborhood association … had his gun with him at the press conference today to discuss how gun owners should support stricter gun laws and harsher penalties for those who carry guns illegally,” the story noted. Outcast President Matthews then held that gun, admonishing gun owners to be “responsible.”

Look at the article photo. What’s the gun doing out of its holster? How is handling it and passing it around either “responsible” or safe? Remember, these people are advocating ending all carry. So why do it? For publicity über alles…?

True, open carry is “legal” in Alabama, even without a permit, but there’s an important qualifier:

Section 13A-11-7 Disorderly conduct. (c) It shall be a rebuttable presumption that the mere carrying of a visible pistol, holstered or secured, in a public place, in and of itself, is not a violation of this section.

Is it “holstered or secured”?

And there’s another problem:

13A-11-59. Possession of firearms by persons participating in, attending, etc., demonstrations at public places. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this subsection, except in those instances where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1) DEMONSTRATION. Demonstrating, picketing, speechmaking or marching, holding of vigils and all other like forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views or grievances engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. Such term shall not include casual use of property by visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers.

Oops.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

DOJ Says They’ll Stop Investigating Police Misconduct — Promises More Drug War Instead

Washington, D.C. — (RT) The Justice Department should allocate more money to help police fight crime rather than spend scarce resources on lawsuits against police departments, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said. The DOJ has found much abuse within US policing in recent years.

Speaking before the National Association of Attorneys General winter meeting in Washington, DC, Sessions said his Department of Justice (DOJ) will include a task force that will analyze policing practices in the US in order to fight crime.

The Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety will employ the heads of major federal law enforcement agencies to “look at deficiencies in our current laws that have made them less effective in reducing crime, and propose new legislation.”

Part of the revamped DOJ mission will include reversing the suffering morale of law enforcement, which, “as a whole has been unfairly maligned and blamed for the unacceptable deeds of a few bad actors,” Sessions said.

“[R]ather than dictating to local police how to do their jobs – or spending scarce federal resources to sue them in court – we should use our money, research and expertise to help them figure out what is happening and determine the best ways to fight crime,” the attorney general said.

According to the DOJ’s website, at least 29 law enforcement agencies in the US and its territories have been the subject of a DOJ investigation in recent years.  Those investigations encompass a vast range of misdeeds and abusive practices by the likes of the Baltimore and Cleveland police departments, among many others.

READ MORE:  Dept Says Cop Followed Procedure When He Mistook a 70-yo Man"s Stroke for DUI and Beat Him

Jeff Sessions tells state AGs: people who are here unlawfully who commit crimes are going to be “outta here.” 1st speech as leader of DOJ.

— Carrie Johnson (@johnson_carrie) February 28, 2017

In January, the DOJ said that the Chicago Police Department engaged in a systematic pattern civil rights violations and wanton use of deadly force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

In 2015, the DOJ found routine constitutional violations by the Ferguson (Mo.) Police Department that severely impacted a “community where deep distrust and hostility often characterized interactions between police and area residents.”

On Monday, Sessions said he has not decided how the DOJ will handle the Chicago probe, nor has he even read DOJ investigative reports on the Chicago Police Department and other police departments.

“I have not read those reports, frankly. We’ve had summaries of them, and some of it was pretty anecdotal, and not so scientifically based,” Sessions said, according to the Huffington Post.

Repeating a familiar theme among Donald Trump administration officials, Sessions said there is a “disturbing rise in violent crime in our nation.” Crime statistics for 2015, the latest year with complete data, showed a 3.9 percent increase from the previous year, according to the FBI.

Yet, violent crime is down about half since the early 1990s and sits at a level not seen since the 1970s. The rise in 2015 came after two decades of decreases. Sessions acknowledged this “context” of decreasing rates of violent crime in the long-term. Nevertheless, he warned the recent increase cannot yet be written off as a “one-year spike.”

“These numbers should trouble all of us,” Sessions said in reference to upticks in murder rates of major US cities. “My worry is that this is not a ‘blip’ or an anomaly, but the start of a dangerous new trend that could reverse the hard-won gains of the past four decades – gains that made America a safer and more prosperous place.”

Referencing America’s “heroin epidemic,” Sessions first blamed Mexican drug cartels and “illegal drugs [that] flood across our southern border.” Heroin overdose deaths, for example, have quadrupled in the last five years, the federal government said last week. Experts on heroin use in the US point out that the drug’s skyrocketing popularity has been fueled by common availability of, and subsequent crackdown on, prescription drugs.

Increasing federal drug and gun prosecutions will be a priority for his DOJ after declining trends for both classes of crime, Sessions said.

READ MORE:  Officer to Citizen: "You must be doing something wrong if you invoke your rights"

He also claimed that law enforcement officers “are becoming more cautious” amid criticism of policing practices in “this age of viral videos and targeted killings of police.”

“Our officers, deputies and troopers believe the political leadership of this country abandoned them,” Sessions said. “Their morale has suffered.”

Subway Under Fire Over “Chicken”

(ANTIMEDIA) In 2014, Subway faced widespread backlash when it was revealed that the bread in their sandwiches contained a chemical commonly found in yoga mats and other rubbers. Though the company acted swiftly amid the PR disaster and removed the ‘ingredient’ from their food, they are now facing scrutiny amid a recent lab test that found their chicken only contains 53.6% chicken DNA.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Marketplace division enlisted researchers at Trent University’s Wildlife Forensic DNA Laboratory to test chicken from various fast food restaurants, including Wendy’s, McDonald’s, A&W, and Tim Horton’s.

According to CBC:

We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.

“An unadulterated piece of chicken from the store should come in at 100 per cent chicken DNA.  Seasoning, marinating or processing meat would bring that number down, so fast food samples seasoned for taste wouldn’t be expected to hit that 100 per cent target.”

Every fast food restaurant except Subway tested close to 100% — at least 84% and above — according to researchers, who noted the percentage can decrease with added seasoning and spices.

Nevertheless:

“Subway’s results were such an outlier that the team decided to test them again, biopsying five new oven roasted chicken pieces, and five new orders of chicken strips.”

“Those results were averaged: the oven roasted chicken scored 53.6 per cent chicken DNA, and the chicken strips were found to have just 42.8 per cent chicken DNA. The majority of the remaining DNA? Soy.”

This is particularly disturbing because though soy has been touted as a “healthy” option, it is actually linked to a variety of health problems. “Thousands of studies link soy to malnutrition, digestive distress, immune system breakdown, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders and infertility — even cancer and heart disease,” the Huffington Post has explained, also noting that in the United States, at least, 90% of soy is genetically modified.

Subway questioned the results of the tests. According to a company statement:

“SUBWAY Canada cannot confirm the veracity of the results of the lab testing you had conducted. However, we are concerned by the alleged findings you cite with respect to the proportion of soy content.”

Claiming they recently tested their products and determined they were up to their standards, they added, “We will look into this again with our supplier to ensure that the chicken is meeting the high standard we set for all of our menu items and ingredients.”

According to Marketplace, the testing revealed other concerns:

“[O]nce the ingredients [were] factored in, the fast food chicken had about a quarter less protein than you would get in its home-cooked equivalent. And overall, the sodium levels were between seven and 10 times what they would be in a piece of unadulterated chicken.”

To the company’s credit, they have worked to eliminate at least one concerning ingredient in their chicken: antibiotics. Anti-Media previously reported on a widespread study that graded fast food restaurants on their use of antibiotics in meat. Subway was included:

“Though last year they received an ‘F,’ this year they are the ‘only [new] restaurant chain to adopt a new antibiotics policy that applies to all types of meat it serves.’ The analysis reports roughly two-thirds of Subway chicken is now antibiotic-free.”

Nevertheless, it should come as no surprise that a fast food chain with a history of using questionable ingredients continues to have issues with the quality of their products — in spite of their claims their chicken is, well, chicken.

Simply put, “That’s misrepresentation,” according to one Toronto resident who participated in a Marketplace taste test of the fast food products tested.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Harvard’s New Endowment Manager Shakes Things Up After Dismal Performance

The new CEO of Harvard Management Company (HMC), N.P. “Narv” Narvekar, fired half of his staff last December, and in a letter announcing the moves, stated:

Major change is never easy and will require an extended period of time to bear fruit. Transitioning away from practices that have been ingrained in HMC’s culture for decades will no doubt be challenging at times.

But we must evolve to be successful, and we must withstand the associated growing pains to achieve our goals.

To each of those approximately 115 staffers who were let go, Narv offered his condolences: “It is exceptionally difficult to see such a large number of our colleagues leave the firm, and we will be very supportive of these individuals in their transition. We are grateful for their committed service to Harvard and wish them the very best in their future endeavors.”

Narvekar is the eighth permanent or interim chief executive at the helm of HMC as returns from its $35 billion endowment continue to underperform not only the stock market in general but its peers at Yale, Columbia, and other Ivy League schools, as well.

The company’s performance was so bad that consulting firm McKinsey & Company was brought in to find out what the matter was and to recommend changes. According to Bloomberg, which had a look at the report that wasn’t made public, employees at HMC complained of an “inattentive board” and a “complacent culture," calling upper management “lazy, fat and stupid.”

McKinsey found that during the five years from 2000 to 2014, the compensation for individual account managers soared while the fund’s performance languished. Eleven money managers for HMC raked in $242 million, 90 percent of which was made up of bonuses for outperforming their “benchmarks.” One of the authors of the report said, “This is the only place I’ve seen where people can negotiate the benchmark they get compensated on!” As a result, said McKinsey, those benchmarks were “easy to beat, inconsistent and often manipulated.”

According to Bloomberg the performance failure cost the school’s endowment $3.5 billion. In other words, the fund, worth about $35 billion today, should be worth closer to $40 billion, perhaps even more.

Narvekar has brought in some of his friends to help manage the fund, three of them from Columbia, where he managed that school’s endowment to above-average performance. He has ordered the trading department to close its accounts, and announced plans to ship much of the fund’s assets to outside hedge fund managers. Narvekar is being paid $9 million a year to manage the transition, with a three-year guarantee, much like in professional football. Even if he fails to perform he still gets the guarantee.

It’s likely that Narvekar doesn’t own any shares in Berkshire Hathaway, the gigantic investment fund owned and operated by Warren Buffett and his partner, Charley Unger. If he did, he would have read what Buffett thinks of those “outside” hedge fund managers in his latest shareholder newsletter. The answer, in two words, is: not much.

Narv would first of all have noted that BH shares gained 23.4 percent last year compared to HMC’s fund which lost 2 percent, dropping its value below the $36.9 billion “high water” mark that it reached back in 2008.

Second, he would have learned that Buffett is about to collect on a bet he made nine years ago that the best hedge fund managers — even the very best-of-the-best — would underperform a simple buy-and-hold strategy of stocks invested in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (ticker symbol SPX). As Buffett explained:

Now, to my bet and its history. In Berkshire’s 2005 annual report, I argued that active investment management by professionals — in aggregate — would over a period of years underperform the returns achieved by rank amateurs who simply sat still. I explained that the massive fees levied by a variety of “helpers” would leave their clients — again in aggregate — worse off than if the amateurs simply invested in an unmanaged low-cost index fund.

Initially he offered to wager $500,000 that no investment professional could select a group of at least five hedge funds that would, over a period of time, beat the returns on an unmanaged S&P 500 Index fund charging only token fees. Wrote Buffett: 

What followed was the sound of silence. Though there are thousands of professional investment managers who have amassed staggering fortunes by touting their stock-selecting prowess, only one man — Ted Seides — stepped up to my challenge….

Ted picked five funds-of-funds whose results were to be averaged and compared against my Vanguard S&P index fund. The five he selected had invested their money in more than 100 hedge funds, which meant that the overall performance of the funds-of-funds would not be distorted by the good or poor results of a single manager.

There were fees galore, fees upon fees, all designed, it is said, to “incentivize” the managers:

Each fund-of-funds, of course, operated with a layer of fees that sat above the fees charged by the hedge funds in which it had invested. In this doubling-up arrangement, the larger fees were levied by the underlying hedge funds; each of the fund-of-funds imposed an additional fee for its presumed skills in selecting hedge-fund managers.

The results? From the start of 2008 the best of the five funds that Seides selected returned, through 2016, 62.8 percent. The worst returned just 2.9 percent.

And Buffett’s S&P 500 index fund of choice — the Vanguard S&P index fund? It returned 85.4 percent.

Buffett was gracious to a fault:

I’m certain that in almost all cases the managers at both levels were honest and intelligent people. But the results for their investors were dismal — really dismal. And, alas, the huge fixed fees charged by all of the funds and funds-of-funds involved — fees that were totally unwarranted by performance — were such that their managers were showered with compensation over the nine years that have passed. As Gordon Gekko might have put it: “Fees never sleep.”

Buffett explained how those fees worked: rewarding performance in good years to such an extent that the overall performance of the fund was severely limited:

We’re not through with fees. Remember, there were the fund-of-funds managers to be fed as well. These managers received an additional fixed amount that was usually set at 1% of assets. Then, despite the terrible overall record of the five funds-of-funds, some experienced a few good years and collected “performance” fees. Consequently, I estimate that over the nine-year period roughly 60% — gulp! — of all gains achieved by the five funds-of-funds were diverted to the two levels of managers. That was their misbegotten reward for accomplishing something far short of what their many hundreds of limited partners could have effortlessly — and with virtually no cost — achieved on their own.

Concluded Buffett:

A number of smart people are involved in running hedge funds. But to a great extent their efforts are self-neutralizing, and their IQ will not overcome the costs they impose on investors. Investors, on average and over time, will do better with a low-cost index fund than with a group of funds of funds.

It’s unfortunate that “Narv” hasn’t read Buffett’s shareholder letter, or, if he has, he’s not taking Buffett’s advice. This is likely to mean that the investment performance of Harvard’s endowment will continue to feed its managers, and himself, while leaving billions of potential dollars behind.

If Harvard weren’t such a primary source for graduating individuals with a collectivist mindset and worldview who then successfully insinuate themselves into the body politic, it would be easy to grieve over its likely poor future performance.

An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Stop Calling Trump a Nazi. He’s Not a Fascist…Yet

(ANTIMEDIA Op-Ed) Washington, D.C. — “And we’re nowhere. Actually, if you think about it, we’re less than nowhere. The Middle East is far worse than it was sixteen, seventeen years ago. There’s not even a contest. So we’ve spent six trillion dollars, we’ve got a hornet’s nest, it’s a mess like you’ve never seen it before. We’re nowhere. So we’re gonna straighten it out.”

That’s a direct quote from President Donald Trump, spoken Monday morning before an assemblage of United States governors. During the speech, the president loosely outlined his budget plan for 2018. The blueprint is being sent to federal agencies, and the president promised to explain the plan in “great detail” during his first speech before a joint session of Congress Tuesday night.

Minutes before the speech, White House officials had unveiled the proposal to reporters. As should come as a surprise to no one, the president is calling for an increase in defense spending — to the tune of $54 billion.

We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.

The boost will come at the expense of “lower priority programs and most federal agencies,” one of the officials said.

While noting Trump’s view that cuts to military spending aren’t the answer to America’s budgetary woes, Brian Bennett, writing for the L.A. Times, succinctly summarized the president’s plan:

“Instead, the increase he is proposing would be offset by be cuts to unspecified domestic programs and to foreign aid, which would in turn be made up for in part by demanding that other countries pay more for security alliances that have historically been underwritten by the U.S.”

The president has never shied away from making known his desire to beef up the military, and if nothing else, the proposed plan eliminates any doubt he intends to make good on that campaign pledge.

“This budget will be a public safety and national security budget,” Trump said Monday, calling his plan to “rebuild the depleted military” a “historic” one.

As President Trump made clear before the gathered governors Monday, he is tired of watching the United States lose face in the realm of warfare:

“We never win a war. We never win. And we don’t fight to win. We don’t fight to win. So we either got to win or don’t fight it at all.”

Though it may not seem so at first, these may be the scariest words yet to come from the mouth of the new American leader. They reveal a level of ego and arrogance in the man that — even for The Donald — almost defies belief.

This is his military. And his military, whatever the cost, is going to win.

Examine the quote that opens this article, for instance. Trump calls the Middle East a “hornet’s nest,” one on which the U.S. has wasted $6 trillion on over the last 17 years. “So we’re gonna straighten it out,” says the president.

Just like that. Donald Trump claims he’ll “straighten out” the Middle East. He and his military, of course. The most war-torn and geopolitically complex region on the planet? Not a problem for the leader of the United States.

How, exactly, he plans on accomplishing this goal by upping the budget of the largest military in the world by $54 billion — while cutting funding for domestic programs at home — he didn’t specify.

“We’re going to do more with less,” said the president, promising a “lean and accountable” government for the people.

A lean, accountable government that, as one White House official noted Monday, will be geared more toward “internal collaboration” between the Trump administration and federal agencies.

An interesting choice of words.

Last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference, top Trump aide Steve Bannon said a goal of the president’s team is the “deconstruction of the administrative state.”

Deconstruction. Sure. That’s what everyone who seeks political power would like. To tear down the old and rebuild the new in their own image — with their values and beliefs, such as they might exist. It’s easier to exert your will in such an environment, as any good ruler knows.

That’s what makes these comments from Trump so scary; it’s becoming increasingly clear this is precisely what the man and his crew are attempting to accomplish.

Out with the old, in with new — as in authoritarian establishment.

Scary because of the ego. Scary because of the arrogance. Scary because of the popular support. Scary because of the people surrounding him. Scary because of the power he assumes he already has. Scariest, though, because no one’s really talking about it.

People call Donald Trump Hitler without really considering the words. They just know Hitler was a bad guy and, to them, so is Donald Trump. Few know how he came to power. Few truly understand how he rose to that position.

Well, look around, folks. Here’s how it happened.

That isn’t to say Donald Trump is the next Adolf Hitler. No one seems to know what the man will do next. That’s sort of the point. But with the election of Trump and his choices for positions in key roles around him, one thing is becoming unnervingly clear — the makings of a true, American fascist State have taken root in the White House.

Opinion / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Democrats Have Created Their Own Worst Enemy — and It’s Within Their Own Party

(SHADOWPROOF) Establishment Democrats elected former Labor Secretary Tom Perez to chair the Democratic National Committee. They defeated Representative Keith Ellison and survived a push from the grassroots to take a meaningful step to transform the Democratic Party into a real and actual opposition party.

DNC members also defended campaign contributions from corporations and struck down a motion to reinstate a ban against corporate contributions that was once supported by President Barack Obama.

Bob Mulholland, a California superdelegate who supported Hillary Clinton in the primary, helped lead the effort against the motion put forward by Christine Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.

“We are in a corporate hotel. We have meals provided by a corporation. We drive cars provided by corporations,” Mulholland declared on February 24.

During the vote on the motion to prevent the ban from coming up for any debate, Mulholland declared, “Our federal laws allow Westin Hotel to contribute to us, allow Microsoft, allow Google, and all those corporation in northern Carolina, who stood up for the Democratic Party platform against the law there to try to outlaw or discriminate against transgender—Why should the Democratic Party say now, hey, great what you did, but we’re not gonna take your contributions?”

Harold Ickes, a former deputy chief of staff for President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton superdelegate, stated, “I don’t think federal corporate lobbyists, however defined, should be precluded from participating in Democratic Party affairs, especially at the Democratic National Committee.”

Pelosi was upset because the resolution apparently had unanimous support of the resolutions committee yet a faction undertook an attempt to scuttle it. Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union President Stuart Appelbaum said the motion was an “opportunity to send a message to the people of this country as to our values and who we are as Democrats.”

Those opposed to the ban sowed confusion about whether it would prevent contributions from nonprofit organizations, like Planned Parenthood. Yet, it was identical to a ban that was in place for seven years until the DNC under Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s leadership quietly rolled back restrictions with little input from DNC members.

Particular DNC members appeared to treat the ban as a referendum on the DNC’s support for corporations rather than a motion aimed at curtailing the influence of big money in politics. It was very similar to how Clinton surrogates regularly took offense to criticism of her ties to corporate donors, as if Democrats are somehow magically impervious to corruption when they depend on such contributors.

Perez often held himself out as a DNC chair candidate, who was not very different from Ellison. But Perez entered the race weeks after Ellison announced his campaign. If there was not anything different, why did centrist Democrats, particularly Clinton and Obama Democrats, want Perez to be the next chair?

Establishment Democrats did not want Ellison, a former Sanders surrogate and a black Muslim American, to be the chair. Many believe the Sanders campaign substantially diminished Clinton’s chances to beat Donald Trump in November by challenging her so strongly from the left.

Throughout the afternoon, DNC members consistently raised the issue of unity. However, what Clinton and Obama Democrats really seem to want is conformity from the most progressive wing of the party, especially those who supported Sanders for president.

Recall, during the Democratic National Convention, the DNC confiscated signs, drowned out protest chants with counter-chants, locked down the arena during certain speeches to deter walkouts, and stationed party-appointed whips in the aisles to monitor rowdy Sanders delegates and signal to Clinton supporters when to chant and hold up pro-Clinton signs.

Perez and his DNC backers co-opted the message of grassroots organizations and phonily acted as if they would resist President Trump just as supporters of Ellison demand, even though Perez had very little support from the grassroots.

But this is the strategy of the New Democrats and has been since their rise in the early 1990s.

As detailed in Lance Selfa’s book, “The Democrats: A Critical History,” President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore stood with conservative Democrats, who broke with labor, civil rights, and other liberal causes. They pushed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). They backed welfare repeal, bills which fueled the rise of mass incarceration, and signed a 1997 budget that slashed millions for social programs like Medicare and Medicaid. They put corporate interests over environmental protections. They encouraged the deregulation of industry, which greatly boosted Wall Street.

Perez supported the corporate Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which Sanders Democrats vehemently opposed (and Trump has now killed). Though he supports $15 minimum wage, he backed a presidential campaign, which deceptively endorsed the Service Employees International Union’s “Fight for 15” while refusing to support a $15 minimum wage.

He also granted waivers for UBS, Barclays, J.P. Morgan, the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, and Citigroup” while he was Labor Secretary received waivers, which allowed them to go back to managing pension money even though they were guilty of a crime.

And, as The Intercept’s Lee Fang reported in January, Perez refused to support a revival of Obama’s ban on donations from corporate lobbyists.

Establishment Democrats are afraid the party may become the Tea Party of the Left. They see Sanders Democrats not as assets for energizing voters to help them win elections but as liabilities that will cost them the ability to engage in business as usual. However, that business as usual resulted in the loss of over 1,000-plus seats at all levels of government while Obama was president.

This controlling faction worries about the effect of such efforts, like “We Will Replace You,” a campaign to primary Democrats and create a political cost for elected officials, who take the “path of least resistance” and fail to stand up for economic, racial, social, and environmental justice.

Bill McKibben, 350.org founder and former Sanders surrogate, clearly articulated the potential benefit grassroots forces would win if Ellison was elected to chair the DNC:

“We don’t need the Democratic Party to tell us what to think – we have vibrant and engaged movements out there that are reshaping public opinion every day, in the airports and on Facebook. Black Lives Matter leads our movement intellectually in a way that the Democratic Party never will. But we may need the Democratic party for the fairly limited purpose of winning elections and hence consolidating power.”

However, after electing Perez to chair the DNC, the New Democrats have ensured most movements will maintain a distance from the Democratic Party. They will view efforts by the Democrats to align themselves with grassroots campaigns as less than genuine if not completely cynical.

And most definitely, candidates will be fielded to defeat incumbents, who do not meaningfully stand for an alternative vision to Trump’s agenda, whether Perez approves of this strategy or not. That is because they want to support an opposition party, not a party that has become the second-wing of a corporate party that dominates the United States.

By Kevin Gosztola / Republished with permission / Shadow Proof / Report a typo

While U.S. Targets Illegal Immigrants, Spain “Jails 65 Illegal Bankers”

Is everyone focused on the right enemy?

At the heart of every truly wicked and dark corner of the system’s activities is the central bank, and a scheme for domination.

It’s probably why everyone always advises ‘follow the money.’

While the Trump Administration is cracking down on immigration, and scoring big populist points for being tough on foreign criminals and undocumented families, he holds in his administration a who’s who of Wall Street’s banking elite, the very leaders of the mega-banks that caused the 2008 economic crisis, and who continue to drag the economy dangerously close to repeat disaster as the atmosphere of predatory financial dealings continues…

A lot of Americans would cheer on putting some of those guys on trial, those most responsible for rigging the economy and looting from the American people.

Instead, they remain at the helm of the ship.

Perhaps instead, they should take a lesson from Spain – and Iceland before it – by charging elite bankers for their roles in illegal banking.

via Business Live:

Former International Monetary Fund (IMF) chief Rodrigo Rato was handed a jail sentence of four years and six months on Thursday for misusing funds when he was the boss of two Spanish banks.

… he had been found guilty of embezzlement when he headed up Caja Madrid and Bankia, at a time when both groups were having difficulties.

The case prompted outrage in Spain, where it was uncovered at the height of a severe economic crisis that left many people struggling financially — made all the worse because Bankia later had to be nationalised and injected with more than €22bn in public funds.

[…]

He was on trial with 64 other former executives and board members at both banks accused of misusing €12m between 2003 and 2012 — sometimes splashing out at the height of Spain’s economic crisis.

[…]

Rato will not necessarily go directly to jail if he appeals against the ruling, just like the Spanish king’s brother-in-law Inaki Urdangarin who has been left free without posting bail after his sentence of six years for syphoning off millions of euros.

Urdangarin’s temporary reprieve, which was also announced on Thursday, made waves in Spain where people have criticised what is perceived as the impunity of the elite.

While many of these elite will indeed squirm away with special deals, and provisions for probation and early release, it still sends the right signal.

The U.S. economy should not be fair game for constant manipulation – where our own downfall is engineered by carefully managed, and swiftly popped, bubbles.

Not one prominent banker has been charged or convicted for their role in the 2008 crisis – and that’s with former Goldman Sachs executive Hank Paulson demanding a bailout from Congress through the use of threats and heavy arm-twisting.

Read more:

Jail the Banksters? Bernanke Now Claims “Wall Street Execs Should’ve Been Held Accountable”

Goldman Pays Fine For Causing 2008 Crisis As “The Rest of the World Faced Financial Armageddon”

“Too Big To Fail Banks” Caught Creating Fake Accounts… The Dam Of Fraud Is About to Spill Open

The Federal Reserve Has Unleashed a “Virus Of Radical Monetary Policy”… and There’s No Going Back

Fed Vice Chairman Warns: Your Bank May Seize Your Money to Recapitalize Itself

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

Author: Mac Slavo
Views: Read by 2 people
Date: February 28th, 2017
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

Bad Cop Arrested After Good Cop Filmed Him Stomp Innocent Man’s Head In

Conway, AR — Faulkner County Sheriff’s deputy, Eugene Watlington, 43, went to trial last week for excessive force after stomping on the head of Harvey Martin. The entire assault was captured on video by Mayflower police officer Dalton Elliott.

The violent arrest happened during a botched police chase in 2015, during which Martin was working undercover for Conway police. When Faulkner County deputies attempted to pull over a Mustang carrying Martin and the man who he was supposed to be surveilling, Christopher Cummings, all hell broke loose.

As the chase began, Cummings held a gun to Martin’s head and forced him to speed away from police, according to authorities. The chase only ended once the Mustang ran out of gas. When the chase ended, however, the violent excessive force began.

According to Elliot, he and two deputies had their guns drawn when they arrived at the site in Conway where the chase ended once the Mustang ran out of gas. Elliott said they told Martin to put his hands up, which he did. Elliott said Martin did not resist arrest.

When police moved in to make the arrest, Cummings ran, but Martin immediately complied.

Naturally, Watlington’s fellow officers claimed that Martin was not cooperating and continued to “reach for his waistband.” But, the video does not show this. Also, Martin would not have any reason to reach for his waistband as he was working for the police at the time.

During the trial, Elliot testified that he counted “nine to 10 times” that the 6-foot-1 Watlington, who weighed 310 pounds according to his arrest warrant, kicked Martin with his boot.

READ MORE:  Cops Caught on Camera in Cowardly Gang-Style Beating of an Unarmed Man Lying Face Down

Watlington was not participating in the arrest and was only standing there — just waiting to inflict violence.

According to Arkansas Online, Conway Police Department officer Glen Cooper testified that Martin was trying to help Conway police locate Cummings that night. Cooper said Watlington asked him to question Martin later because Watlington said Martin wouldn’t want to talk with him. Watlington then smiled and shined a flashlight on one of his boots, the officer said.

“Help me! Help me! I’m not resisting,” Martin can be heard screaming in the video as officers stomp, punch and kick him. The sound of the beating was so overwhelming in the courtroom that Martin’s mother broke down into tears and had to cover her ears.

“I think the best piece of evidence was … the video” filmed by Mayflower police officer Dalton Elliott with a body camera, Special Prosecutor Tom Tatum said, according to Arkansas Online. “There’s no bias” with the video. “It … shows what it shows.”

Martin, who was actually helping police before being assaulted, was then rushed to the emergency room after the beating.

“I was beat down, tased, everything. I wasn’t putting up no fight,” Martin told authorities in an interview after his arrest.

Once the smoke and the blood cleared, all charges against Martin were dropped, and the attention was focused on Watlington. The Faulkner County Sheriff then fired Watlington after an investigation concluded that he’d used “excessive force.” He was charged a short time after being fired.

As the Free Thought Project frequently points out, violent and dangerous cops are allowed to continue to prey on society because their fellow cops remain silent in the face of excessive force. Fortunately, however, that was not the case this time around.

READ MORE:  22-Year Veteran of White Plains Police Force Kills 2 Daughters, 3 Family Pets, Then Himself

In spite of the fact that Watlington’s fellow corrupt cops attempted to cover for the officer, Elliot’s video and testimony were able to bring this bad cop to justice.

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Facebook, and now on Steemit

For the First Time, Federal Court Explicitly Establishes Filming Cops as a Right

There’s been an ongoing battle between police and the citizenry over who has the right to film in public. Disputes between police and the public have led to camera’s being confiscated by police, and citizens being manhandled, beaten, and arrested. Now, it seems, the courts are weighing in, and not on the side of police.

The court’s opinion comes from a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by Phillip Turner vs. Driver, Grinald, and Dyess (2017). The plaintiffs are all officers from Ft. Worth, Texas. According to court documents, “Plaintiff-Appellant Phillip Turner was video recording a Fort Worth police station from a public sidewalk across the street when Defendants- Appellees Officers Grinalds and Dyess approached him and asked him for identification. Turner refused to identify himself, and the officers ultimately handcuffed him and placed him in the back of a patrol car.”

Prior to this case, there was no clear precedent that specifically established filming the police as a first amendment right. In fact, as we’ve reported before, U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a ruling last year stating that citizens do not have a First Amendment right to record the police in public.

According to the recent precedent:

At the time in question, neither the Supreme Court nor this court had determined whether First Amendment protection extends to the recording or filming of police. Although Turner insists, as some district courts in this circuit have concluded, that First Amendment protection extends to the video recording of police activity in light of general First Amendment principles, the Supreme Court has “repeatedly” instructed courts “not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality”: “The general proposition, for example, that an unreasonable search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little help in determining whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Thus, Turner’s reliance on decisions that “clarified that [First Amendment] protections . . . extend[] to gathering information” does not demonstrate whether the specific act at issue here—video recording the police or a police station—was clearly established.

The court went on to note that police nor Turner had a precedent to reference in which filming cops was specifically protected as a first amendment right.

In light of the absence of controlling authority and the dearth of even persuasive authority, there was no clearly established First Amendment right to record the police at the time of Turner’s activities.

Now there is.

READ MORE:  Pool Party Turns Violent When Police Show Up and Assault and Nearly Shoot Multiple Teens

In the recent ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on the citizens’ rights to film police movement, activities and buildings. The court determined,

“We conclude that First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.” The court set the first ever precendent giving citizens the right to film police, within reason, of course. In other words, the court believes the public has a right to film police so long as it is within reason, in public, and not in private. Going further, the court seemed to empathize with the public’s demand for a transparent government. They wrote, “speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.”

Turner asserted his first amendment rights were violated when he was disallowed from filming the police station he was recording. For refusing to provide identification when asked, Turner was detained, handcuffed, and placed into the back of a squad car —an action he contends was a violation of his fourth amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure and arrest.

When the supervisor arrived, Turner told him he was aware of his rights to withhold his identity. The supervisor agreed, he was given back his camera and allowed to leave. Unfortunately, the court’s ruling was not put in place prior to his case, or else he would have been allowed to continue filming and free to come and go as he pleased. Even though he never was sent to jail, his detainment was a form of arrest, a contention he raises going further with his case.

READ MORE:  Lawmaker Calls for Annual Mandatory Mental Evaluations for Police Officers

While the Texas precedent is not a national precedent, those who are attempting to film the police can, nonetheless, cite the precedent in the hopes police officers will continue to allow them to film without being impeded. Until such time as the Supreme Court weighs in on the matter, the right to film police will still continue to be a matter of contention between the police and the public, and dealt with on a state by state basis.

For his part, Turner appears to welcome the challenge to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court. We reached out to Turner for comment but have not yet heard back from him as of the writing of this article. But he did post a comment to his Facebook page. “5th circuit established, is the Supreme Court next??,” he stated, apparently feeling the weight of his victory in court.

If you or someone you know is planning to attempt to film cops, here’s some things you need to know. According to the ACLU’s guide to photographing in public;

Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right—and that includes transportation facilities, the outside of federal buildings, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.

Unfortunately, law enforcement officers have been known to ask people to stop taking photographs of public places. Those who fail to comply have sometimes been harassed, detained, and arrested. Other people have ended up in FBI databases for taking innocuous photographs of public places.

The right of citizens to record the police is a critical check and balance. It creates an independent record of what took place in a particular incident, one that is free from accusations of bias, lying, or faulty memory. It is no accident that some of the most high-profile cases of police misconduct have involved video and audio records.

As for video, the ACLU recommends;

No matter who you are you have the First Amendment right to:

Peacefully assemble and protest in public spaces and photograph and videotape the police or anything else in a public space.

Here’s the deal:

Public spaces include streets, sidewalks, and public parks.
Private property owners can set rules for public entry (like a theater saying “no cell phones”).

The right to take photos does not give you the right to:

Go places you’re not otherwise allowed, record audio of other people’s private, conversations, trespass, or interfere with police engaged in legitimate law enforcement operations.

Police officers may not: confiscate or demand to view your digital photos or videos without a warrant, or delete your photos or videos under any circumstances.

If you’re stopped or detained for taking photos:

Be polite.
Don’t resist.
Ask, “Am I free to go?”
If the officer says “no,” you are being detained.
If you are detained, ask what crime you’re suspected of committing.
Until you ask to leave, being stopped is considered voluntary.

It’s perfectly reasonable and acceptable to remind the police officer that “taking photographs is your First Amendment right” and “does not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

READ MORE:  This is Why the Media Is Silent -- Award Winning Journalist To Be Jailed For Covering Dakota Pipeline

Jeff Sessions confirms he’s going after states that have legalized marijuana

WASHINGTON D.C. (INTELLIHUB) — Attorney General Jeff Sessions told reporters who were at the Department of Justice Monday that “experts” have been telling him that marijuana causes “violence” and is no good.

‘I’m definitely not a fan of the drugs expanded use,’ Sessions said.

“I believe it’s an unhealthy practice and current levels of THC in marijuana are very high compared to what they were a few years ago.”

“Most of you probably know I don’t think America is going to be a better place when more people of all ages and particularly young people start smoking pot,” Sessions pointed out.

“I would just say it does remain a violation of federal law to distribute marijuana throughout any place in the United States, whether a state legalizes it or not.”

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said last week that he expects to see “greater enforcement” of federal laws when it comes to recreational marijuana.

@jeffsessions wants "greater enforcement" of fed. marijuana laws, according to @seanspicer. Will this be a move forward for the US or back?

— Intellihub (@intellihubnews) February 28, 2017

Will there be a new war on pot?

Other Sources:

Sessions pushes tougher line on marijuana — Politico

Sessions: I’m ‘not a fan’ of marijuana expansion — The Hill

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Comment Policy: Threats of violence, foul language, bullying, and spam will not be tolerated and may be flagged.

Trump’s border wall plan already working: Illegal immigration down 27%

(INTELLUHUB) — According to number released by Customs and Border Protection on Monday, illegal immigration over the southern border diminished 27% in the first month of 2017 from the previous month of December.

In January a total of 31,575 migrants were apprehended for entering the U.S. illegally and an additional 10,899 were inadmissible.

Although chatter of Trump’s proposed construction of a wall has likely thwarted migrants, for now, the flow of human traffic into the U.S. is expected to pick back up in the spring months.

Be as it may, a Mexican politician has already threatened to stop Mexico’s anti-terrorism efforts along the border over Trump’s plan to build a wall which the Trump Administration is currently gathering bids on. But some are skeptical of Trump’s plan and say he may be biting off more than he can chew.

Evan Siegfried, in a piece for the Wall Street Journal, said that the construction of the wall is all going to come down to eminent domain.

In the article, Siegfried wrote, “Mr. Trump fails to take into account the major hurdle the wall faces: eminent domain […] the U.S. would need to own all 1,954 miles of the border” in able to proceed with the wall’s construction.

However, thus far the Trump Admin doesn’t seem to be too worried about eminent domain issues.

Other Sources:

Illegal immigration dropped 27 percent in January: Reports — Washington Post

Shepard Ambellas is an opinion journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News & Politics (Intellihub.com). Shepard is also known for producing Shade: The Motion Picture (2013) and appearing on Travel Channel’s America Declassified (2013). Shepard is a regular contributor to Infowars. Read more from Shep’s World. Get the Podcast. Follow Shep on Facebook and Twitter.

Featured Image: Michael Vadon/Flickr

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Comment Policy: Threats of violence, foul language, bullying, and spam will not be tolerated and may be flagged.