Sunday, November 25, 2012

Aggressive traffic stop totals handicapped driver's car

Via Terry

ANTHONY WESTBURY/TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS 
  
 Sandra Silasavage is seen at her home near the Okeechobee County line Tuesday. Silasavage was involved in an Oct. 28 wreck on State Road 70 when a St. Lucie County sheriff's deputy used an aggressive driving maneuver to force her off the road, claiming she wouldn't stop. Silasavage, who is handicapped, wasn't seriously injured in the wreck, but her car was totaled.
 

 Disgusting

Sandra Silasavage hardly looks like a flight risk. Yet that's what a St. Lucie County sheriff's deputy claimed after he used an aggressive driving technique to force her off the road, flipping her SUV on its side in the process.

Silasavage, 62, is handicapped with a chronic spinal condition that barely allows her to walk. She was charged with fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer because she did not pull over when instructed to do so.

Her 2008 Ford Expedition was totaled in the wreck, she's out thousands of dollars and her life has been turned upside down.

Silasavage, who lives in western St. Lucie County not far from the Okeechobee County line, was returning home on State Road 70 on the evening of Oct. 28 after shopping in Fort Pierce. She said she had set her cruise control at 55 mph — the posted speed limit — when she noticed a deputy's patrol car behind her.

The deputy did not have his lights or siren on at first, Silasavage said. She noticed him come alongside her, heard his siren and then "everything went crazy." Her car left the road, rolled and ended up on the driver's side, with Silasavage hanging upside down in her seatbelt.

After breaking her back in a horseriding accident in the 1970s and subsequent unsuccessful surgeries, Silasavage's spine is severely bent and twisted. She walks doubled over and has a morphine pump surgically implanted near her spine to alleviate constant pain.

More @ TC Palm

The Holocaust Happened To People Like US!

Via Wild Liberty III


Forensic profiler: Obama confessing election fraud

 obama_revenge

A forensic profiler whose previous cases have included the Natalie Holloway disappearance and the O.J. Simpson double murder says Barack Obama is confessing to stealing the 2012 president election.
“Obama appears to unconsciously confess on multiple occasions that in his secret fury he stole the 2012 presidential election – continuing his attacks on our nation,” Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., told WND in an assessment of Obama.

“But really that is no different whatsoever than in 2008 becoming an illegal president who violated the Constitution. This knowledge comes from one undeniable fact: we have discovered a new unconscious mind that continually quick-reads situations and communicates about it – as Obama reveals.”

Hodges, who wrote “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury,” previously deciphered the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note from the Boulder, Colo., murder case.

He uses a unique psycholinguistic technique he calls “ThoughtPrint Decoding” to “read between the lines” of people’s statements – called “the cutting-edge of forensic science” by expert investigators. He’s not exactly new to the field, already having identified killers by studying ransom notes, emails, letters and police interviews to spot secret confessions. He decoded O.J.’s “suicide note” to confirm Simpson had committed a double murder. He deciphered the JonBenet ransom note from Boulder, Colo., to identify the child’s killer. He decrypted letters from BTK to predict that he was about to kill again – the only profiler to do so. He studied statements by Joran van der Sloot and Deepak Kalpoe to tie them to the slaying of Holloway. He showed how Casey Anthony secretly confessed to killing her daughter in 200 letters written to a jail mate. He even decoded Bill Clinton’s Lewinsky comments.

In a new analysis for WND, Hodges explains that Obama not only confesses, but he suggests a solution for Americans.

More @ WND

TWA Boeing 307 "Stratoliner"-1940

Via Diesel Punks


Virginia Governor Cancels “Confederate History Month”

Via Pam Steele



VERBATIM

After controversially declaring last April as Confederate History Month Virginia’s Republican governor Bob McDonnell has decided to cancel the event for next April.
McDonnell made his announcement at a conference titled “Race, Slavery, and the Civil War,” which was being held at Norfolk State University.

“Slavery was an evil and inhumane practice that reduced people to property,” the first-term governor informed his audience at the historically black college. “It left a stain on the soul of this nation.”
These comments echo similar ones he made in April, during the thick of the Confederate History Month controversy. A week into the month, he issued a written statement in which he apologized to “any fellow Virginian who has been offended or disappointed.”

The Republican governor now faces another offended and disappointed group: The Sons of Confederate Veterans, an organization that promotes Confederate History Month in the few states in which it’s recognized, claim that “the vast majority of citizens of Virginians support Confederate History Month.”

“Our organization is terribly disappointed by this action,” said Brag Bowling, the “commander” of the SCV’s Virginian division. He added:
Nobody’s ever been able to reason with me and tell me why we’re honoring Yankees in Virginia. The only northerners in Virginia were the ones that came to Virginia and killed thousands of Virginia citizens when they invaded.
Gov. McDonnell, however, begs to differ. As he said himself, “One hundred and fifty years is long enough for Virginia to fight the Civil War.”

Half of Deported Criminals Had Been Deported Earlier


 

VERBATIM

Some 188,380 criminal illegal immigrants were deported in fiscal 2011 — and 86,699 of them, or 46 percent, had been deported earlier and had illegally returned to the United States.

According to the Office of Immigration Statistics, 23 percent of the criminals deported that year had committed drug-related offenses, 20 percent had committed criminal traffic offenses — mostly DUI — 12 percent had committed a violent crime, and another 7 percent committed larceny, fraud, or burglary.

“It cannot be ascertained from the available data how many of the 86,699 previously deported criminals committed new crimes other than their illegal return, but unless they were detained shortly after re-entering the United States, it is likely that they came to the attention of the immigration authorities as a result of new crimes (committed after their illegal re-entry) for which they were convicted or arraigned,” stated a report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

“The 46 percent may also be understated due to reclassification of criminal deportees. Thus existing data indicate that a minimum of 46 percent of the 2011 criminal deportees were previously deported and returned to the United States.”

Another 43,307 deportees who had been deported earlier and returned were not categorized as criminals, even though illegal re-entry to the United States by a deportee is a felony under federal law.

“The high percentage of repeat deportees is due in part to the ease of re-entry to the United States for earlier deportees and the knowledge that if apprehended there is only a small chance that they will serve any prison time for illegal re-entry,” the CIS observed.

The CIS also noted that once a deportee re-enters the country illegally, “in nearly all cases the deportee will go undetected unless charged with another crime or if the deportee returns to his old neighborhood and is recognized by local law enforcement officials. Thus the number of deportees who make an illegal re-entry is possibly much higher than indicated.”

The CIS concludes: “The extent of our revolving door for deported criminal illegal immigrants points to failures in securing our nation’s borders. These failures do not bode well for our future ability to intercept known and unknown terrorists who try to gain access to our country.”

Facts

It takes all the red to pay for the blue

 
 

Has the Iron Dome Weakened Israel's Resolve?

Via NC Links and Thinks

 

The Iron Dome saved many lives, but has other effects as well.
 
The author is an Intelligence analyst specializing in Israeli affairs at Max Security Solutions , a geo-political risk consulting firm based in the Middle East. He is also an active reservist in Israel’s Air Defense Command
During last week’s Operation Defensive Pillar,  Israelis and the world at large witnessed the unprecedented success of the Iron Dome air defense system. After all was said and done, Iron Dome operators successfully shot down more than 87 percent of incoming Grad, Katyusha, and Qassam rockets over Israeli urban centers, potentially saving countless lives.

However, this new capability may cost Israel and its grand strategy for achieving a lasting peace with defensible borders in the long term. Ultimately, the Iron Dome’s success may have limited the Jewish State's ability to act against terrorist groups, inciting such groups to execute more innovative methods of attack, thus making a sequel for operation Pillar of Defense ever more imminent.

After witnessing the tactical, operational, and strategic advantages the Iron Dome provided during eight days of heavy rocket fire, the debate over how the system affects Israel's grand strategy continues nevertheless.

One of the more compelling arguments against wide scale use of the Iron Dome is rooted in the nature of the war that is fought between Israel and Palestinian Arab terrorists. Israel, like many Western countries, fights post-heroic warfare, characterized by the disinclination to make sacrifices, or to endanger. On the other hand, the actions of the terrorists can be differentiated as so called 'heroic' warfare in that sense, due to the high level willingness to target civilian population and yes, even to die for their cause.

By largely neutralizing the threat posed by rocket fire on civilians, the Iron Dome thus prevented Israeli decision-makers from engaging in a diplomatically and politically costly ground operation, as the needed justification for such action has mitigated along with the risk posed by rockets slamming into Israeli urban centers.

That said, the apparent overall success of the Iron Dome has in fact also counterproductive effects. In low-intensity conflicts between a state and non-state actor, victory is determined mostly by perceptions as opposed to military gains.  By utilizing the Iron Dome, Israel has significantly lowered the potential for casualties on its side, while continuing to inflict casualties on the other side. As a result, and in an attempt to display themselves as victors in the new environment created by the Iron Dome, Hamas terrorists intensified both the rate and range with which they fired missiles.
This is also likely to continue in the future, as promised shortly after the cease fire enacted on November 21 by a top terrorist leader who said that next time they will have longer range rockets with bigger warheads.

Iron Dome’s success also bore clear negative implications in the international arena, highlighted by the immense international pressure against a ground operation, yet coupled with support for Israel’s right to defend itself.  In the next round of hostilities,  Israel will have even more difficulty garnering international support for operations against terrorists from both the air, and on ground than it had in the latest operation.

If this new environment is to persist, world leaders will likely have trouble seeing Israel's justification for wide-scale operations with an extremely low casualty rate among the Israeli citizenry, and the high civilian cost on the other side.

More @ Arutz Sheva

*Don't think y'all would have any trouble if it was a member of your family. Morons.

Alexis de Tocqueville on the American right of secession

Alexis de Tocqueville on the American right of secession (1835-1840): "However strong a Government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its Constitution.  The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people.  If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right."
Alexis de Tocqueville 1805 – 1859
"However strong a Government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its Constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right."
====================


Sea Raven Press
Sea Raven Press