Dutch football player kicked to death

A Dutch football player has been kicked to death by Moroccan football players. According to Reuters:

A Dutch court found six teenage footballers and a player’s father guilty on Monday of beating an amateur linesman to death, an incident that shocked the nation and prompted soul-searching over soccer violence and race.

Linesman Richard Nieuwenhuizen, 41, was attacked by the soccer players – mostly of Moroccan origin – while he was officiating at an under-17 match at Almere, near Amsterdam.

Nieuwenhuizen was kicked repeatedly by the youth players, who were 15 and 16 years old at the time, and the adult who had been on the sidelines. He collapsed hours after the match and was taken to hospital where he went into a coma and died the following day…

I’m pretty sure the Dutch suffer ongoing abuse and assaults from foreigners every day. This incident attracted some publicity because the victim was a soccer player. While in Amsterdam I witnessed black Africans showing off their white girls to each other as if they’re chattel. It was disgusting – but such behavior doesn’t make it to the news except in rare cases.

“Soul-searching over… race?” I doubt it. “Soul-searching over soccer?” Yes, this is what will happen. The press will focus on violence in sports, hooligans, drunkenness etc. But don’t expect to see much soul-searching over race, unless it’s to focus on the rare instances where native Europeans victimize foreigners.

 

OKC memorial

In a somewhat seedy section of Oklahoma City, near the bus station, stand the Oklahoma City Memorial and museum. The Alfred P. Murrah building, according to Wikipedia…

… contained regional offices for the Social Security Administration, the United States Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration (D.E.A.), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (A.T.F.). The building also contained recruiting offices for both the Army and the Marine Corps. It housed approximately 550 employees.

My attitude, as I wandered the $29,000,000 complex, was that all those 550 employees were, to one extent or another, criminals. I felt bad for the children, less so for the adults who had chosen to work for the abomination we call the “Federal government.”

Here are some photos I snapped while there.

 

The night after my return home I was awakened by a vivid nightmare. I was in a room inside a building when a terrible explosion was heard. The building shook violently and I felt myself falling. Death was imminent.

I’m not one to give much credence to dreams, though I have had some foretell the future. If nothing else, they can serve as windows into our own subconscious.  They sometimes tell us things we already know on a deeper level. In this case, I already knew that I tend to judge people too harshly.

The federal workers who died on that fateful day were, at least many of them, involved in the destruction of lives. They were participating in the persecution of millions. But for a lot of them, what they were doing was only a job. They didn’t know any better. Perhaps, partly due to the actions of the same government they worked for, they lacked good alternatives. Some of them were young and didn’t have the opportunity to educate themselves.

Of course all the above could also be said of enemy soldiers in a war. Many soldiers are killed who do not deserve to die. If we’re not at war with the federal government, we certainly should be; all of us live under its heavy yoke. The question is, how to wage war against it most effectively. Blowing up buildings doesn’t seem to work. Voting doesn’t work. Apathy and inaction toward it might be the best solution. It’s probably the only course of action that the masses could truly support.

 

Looting in Oklahoma

According to Wikipedia, Moore, Oklahoma is over 84% white. Yet there have been reports of looting there following last week’s devastating tornadoes. Are we witnessing the transformation of whites into unprincipled savages?

I’m sure that some of the looters were white, but I just got back from Oklahoma. I spoke with a friend of mine, who is in the National Guard and helped with security in the disaster zone. He told me that many, if not most, of the looters were from out of state. Mexicans were noticeably overrepresented.

“How low can you go?” I asked him. Normal people, when they hear of a disaster far away, would like to travel there so they can help. What can we say about people who travel to such places in order to loot and God knows what else? It makes me want to cut off some hands. To go Sharia on them.

I got back from Oklahoma last night at 11:30 PM and had to get up at 5:00 AM for work. After a long shift, I had to do some shopping. Approaching the checkout counters, my tired mind made a wrong decision: Instead of getting behind the white woman with dozens of items, I got behind a Mexican woman with only one item. Sure enough, her husband and child reunited with her and added more items after I had already placed my items on the counter. Then she proceeded to separate them – one group for her EBT card and the other for cash. On top of this, she didn’t know how to use the card scanner and had to be shown by the cashier. The white woman’s line had already advanced to 2 or 3 people behind her by the time my turn came up. She, and her family, are probably in this country illegally. They’re using my money to support themselves and some of their cousins may be in Oklahoma looting. I thought about this and didn’t feel very “enriched.”

 

We pay for diversity with our freedom

Tom Cushing is up in arms because Sgt. Ed Mullins of the NYPD has opined that we must prove we’re innocent or be presumed guilty, and that this is the price we pay to live in a free society. Cushing writes, in Techdirt:

In a recent Christian Science Monitor article dealing with “teenagers, terrorism and social media” (focusing on the recent Cameron D’Ambrosio arrest for making “terrorist threats” via some improvised rap lyrics posted to Facebook), Sgt. Ed Mullins of the NYPD shows up to make some very disturbing statements about your rights and responsibilities as a (mere) citizen. It starts with the worst kind of “policy” and goes downhill fast.

Using a zero tolerance approach to track domestic terrorists online is the only reasonable way to analyze online threats these days, especially after the Boston Marathon bombing and news that the suspects had subsequently planned to target Times Square in Manhattan, Mullins says. The way law enforcement agencies approach online activity that appears sinister is this: “If you’re not a terrorist, if you’re not a threat, prove it,” he says.

“Zero tolerance” is never “reasonable.” It never has been and it never will be. In fact, it’s the polar opposite. Zero tolerance policies simply absolve the enforcers of any responsibility for the outcome and grant them the privilege of ignoring mitigating factors. It allows them to bypass applying any sort of critical thinking skills (the “reason” part of “reasonable”) and view every infractions as nothing more than a binary IF THEN equation.

Mullins goes even further than this, though, asserting that the burden of proof lies with the person charged, not the person bringing the charges. This flips our judicial system on its head (along with the judicial systems in many other countries) and, if applied the way Mullins views it, puts accused citizens in the impossible position of trying to prove a negative. This is just completely wrong, and it’s a dangerously stupid thing for someone in his position to believe, much less state out loud. (Mullins also heads the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the second-largest police union in New York City.)

Believe it or not, Mullins is not done talking. What he says next doubles up on the “dangerous” and “stupid.” “This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It’s just the way it is,” Mullins adds.

Cushing’s objection is well-founded; it doesn’t make sense to defend freedom by taking it away. But the discerning reader will notice that the real issue isn’t misguided police sergeants at all. The police have been doing what they must do in order to protect the citizens of New York. The real root of the problem is brought up, in passing, shortly thereafter in the article:

… The NYPD has been harassing young minorities at the rate of 500,000 impromptu stop-and-frisks per year for the better part of the last decade. For the past 10 years, the NYPD has been regularly trampling citizens’ civil liberties simply because they attend a mosque. The NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg have worked ceaselessly to make New York the most-surveilled city in the U.S.

It’s no secret that “young minorities” are the main perpetrators of crime in New York. Even the New York Times acknowledges this, as we see from an article by Heather McDonald back in 2010:

Allegations of racial bias, however, ignore the most important factor governing the Police Department’s operations: crime. Trends in criminal acts, not census data, drive everything that the department does, thanks to the statistics-based managerial revolution known as CompStat. Given the patterns of crime in New York, it is inevitable that stop rates will not mirror the city’s ethnic and racial breakdown.

CompStat embodies the iconoclastic idea that the police can stop violence before it happens. The department analyzes victim reports daily, and deploys additional manpower to the places where crime is increasing. Once at a crime hot spot, officers are expected to look out for, and respond to, suspicious behavior.

Such stops happen more frequently in minority neighborhoods because that is where the vast majority of violent crime occurs — and thus where police presence is most intense. Based on reports filed by victims, blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crime in New York in 2009, including 80 percent of shootings and 71 percent of robberies. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of reported gun assaults. And the vast majority of the victims of violent crime were also members of minority groups.

Non-Hispanic whites, on the other hand, committed 5 percent of the city’s violent crimes in 2009, 1.4 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies.

If we allow large numbers of crime-prone people into our communities, then we are faced with a choice: Either protect the citizenry by ruling with an iron fist or permit the criminals to operate freely and allow death and mayhem to prevail. If we take the latter choice, we send the message that crime is tolerated in our communities – and the violence will eventually spiral out of control. If we take the former choice, we will lose civil liberties. The only way to avoid this Morton’s Fork scenario is to prevent crime-prone demographics from entering our communities in the first place. This would be a sensible immigration policy.

Unfortunately, those who make the decisions regarding immigration live sheltered lives and do not have to live with the consequences. Whatever their true intentions might be, they have succeeded in convincing a large segment of the population that “diversity” is a goal to be pursued – and that our immigration policies should reflect this goal. When I say “immigration,” I refer not only to the movement of people from one country to another, but also from one city to another – or from one neighborhood to another. When those in power discover a community that is “too white” for their tastes, they force it to accept large numbers of non-white immigrants. The community is ultimately destroyed, and the individuals within it lose their liberties as well.

In conclusion, Cushing is barking up the wrong tree. Instead of defending “young minorities” against police harassment, he should be demanding that more peaceful populations (whites and Asians) be allowed to live separately from those minorities so that they may retain both their safety and their liberty.

As for minority populations responsible for the crime, liberties such as the 4th amendment are alien to them anyway; they would know nothing about them had whites not taught them. As societies, they can have either safety or what we call “liberty”, but not both. The Constitution was intended for a highly developed society. When we are forced to live with savages, the Constitution can no longer apply. We have sacrificed our liberty on the alter of diversity and the only way to get it back is to dismantle said diversity.

 

Background checks for tasers? Bad idea

Portland has its share of crazies; it has a visible undertow of drug addicts, including meth addicts, that blights the downtown area. It also has many homeless people whose mental health is dubious. Add diversity to the mix and the need for some form of protection becomes obvious.

I’d put off getting a taser for years. I wanted to get the type that can fire from several feet, but they’re rather expensive. A couple of days ago I finally made the leap. The young man behind the counter, at the gun store, explained that he would have to run a background check on me for the purchase.

“A background check? No problem” I thought. After all, I have no criminal history and nothing to fear. So why should there be a problem. But requiring background checks for tasers is a problem – when you consider that the taser won’t even work until it’s remotely activated by the manufacturer following a successful background check. I may be wrong, but it would appear that this would make it very difficult for a criminal, or an ex-convict, to acquire a working taser. Guns don’t need to be activated. Anybody can get a gun; if he can’t get one legally, he can buy one on the black market or steal one – and the gun will still work.

Taser International has this to say:

We at TASER International live and work to “Protect Life.” One of the ways we do live is by doing all we can to keep our life-saving devices out of the hands of criminals. We will not activate any TASER CEW without a clear felony background check. It’s the right thing to do because it protects all of us.

There are many decent people who have criminal records. People who were falsely accused and forced to take plea bargains. People who have mended their ways. People who made stupid mistakes or broke laws that make no sense. These people have the right to defend themselves and their families. It would make a lot of sense for them to have tasers. That way, they can do so without using lethal force. As it stands, since they cannot get tasers for this purpose, their only realistic alternative is a gun. You’re more likely to kill somebody with a gun than with a taser. You’re also more likely to end up with a long prison sentence and eat up valuable public resources in the process. There’s a lot more fallout if you use a gun against an intruder than if you use a taser.

While it’s true that a gun can be fired several times before it needs to be reloaded, while a taser has only one shot, there’s no reason we should not have both weapons in our arsenal. It doesn’t make sense to create a situation where a segment of the population has the option of using guns, but no option of using tasers. Just my two cents on the matter.

 

 

Who attacked Wilfred de Bruijn?

I happened to come across a Yahoo news piece concerning a gay couple that was beaten in Paris recently. Reading the article, one gets the impression that Wilfred de Bruijn was beaten by actual Frenchmen. There is no hint, in the article, that anybody but ethnic French – specifically French Catholics – are to blame. The article concludes with these words:

“We don’t want violence. We denounce this violence and these acts, we have nothing to do with (Catholic) fundamentalists or extremists,” she said.

Not so, for De Bruijn.

“It was not Frigide Barjot who was hitting my head, or the bishop of Avignon lurking in that street to attack us,” he said. “But they are responsible.”

But of course. It’s “Catholic extremists” who, it’s implied, committed the deed or were somehow responsible for it. When I saw this story I immediately suspected Muslims and sure enough, Opposing Views gives us more detail:

A graphic photo (below) of Wilfred de Bruijn, who claims he was assaulted in a Muslim part of Paris, has provoked shock and outrage.

It’s not much of a stretch to surmise that “in a Muslim part of Paris” means the attackers were, in fact, Muslim – or at least of Muslim background. It’s also not surprising that Yahoo blames not the mullahs but “Catholic extremists.”

I could sit here all day long and bash Muslims and white-hating organizations such as Yahoo, but this is not my purpose here. Rather I wanted to use this case to illustrate how the Left, though its policies, brings harm to those it professes to love – and then shamelessly uses this harm as an argument for more of its policies.

The European Left has been promoting massive Muslim/African immigration for decades. Now that those immigrants are attacking gays in the streets of Paris, it turns around and uses such incidents as propaganda to further its gay agenda. The Left pursues “gay rights” not so that gays may live in peace and undisturbed. Not at all! “Gay rights” is merely a vehicle to promote the effeminization of white men in general. If white men respect the gay lifestyle more, they’re more likely to become more effeminate (or so their thinking probably goes). Once they’re more effeminate, they’re less likely to oppose their replacement by sacred “people of color.”

The Left doesn’t want white men with guns. It wants white men dressed in pink and with flowers. White men who are pushovers. If I were gay, I’d be insulted that the Left uses my “rights” toward this end. I’d also make sure I own a gun. Gays have a lot more to fear from Muslims and their leftist enablers than from right-wing whites or “Catholic extremists.”

 

The destruction of the Senator

A woman in Florida has been accused of destroying one of the oldest trees in the world. According to Reuters:

This is the Senator, the largest pond cypress in the U.S. and, at 3,500 years old, the fifth-oldest individual tree in the world. Or anyway, this was the Senator, because on Jan. 16, the Florida tree burned from the inside out.

Authorities initially ruled out arson, saying that friction or smoldering lightning damage may have started the fire. But they’ve now ruled it right back in, arresting 26-year-old Sara Barnes for lighting the Senator on fire while sitting inside it doing meth.

The law doesn’t seem to take the age of a tree into account if it is intentionally destroyed. According to another source:

The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services arrested Sara Barnes on charges of intentional burning of land, a third-degree felony.

However, it’s unlikely her case would have drawn much attention, or even been prosecuted, had the victim been a sapling or some blackberry bushes. It’s clear from the headline and comments that the gravity of her crime is linked to the age of her victim. As one comment puts it:

I am no environmentalist but even I think she should face prosecution and  long, long jail term for destroying something so majestic.  Imagine, 3,500 years old.  This tree existed when civilization was still a bunch of tribes fighting over resources in the Fertile Crescent.  Now it is gone because some junky needed to get high.  She is a pretty good argument for the death penalty for drug users. I don’t see that drug users add anything but misery to society.

That comment has 7 thumbs up as of this writing.

The indigenous peoples of Europe have been there continuously for tens of thousands of years. They are being systematically destroyed and those responsible for it are held in high esteem. The genocidal criminals draw bloated paychecks, which are extorted from their victims. Will the perpetrators be punished for their crimes? Not likely – since it’s illegal to even speak of the subject publicly in much of Europe.

The loss of the Senator is indeed tragic, but there will be other senators in the future. Other trees will grow that old or older. But there are no other Europes that can replace the one we’re losing now. Once gone, it will be gone forever.

The loss of the Senator is sad, but what has the Senator done for the human race? Other than serving as a tourist attraction, producing some oxygen and serving as host to other living things, it stood in the same place for thousands of years and accomplished nothing. In contrast, practically every component of modern life hails from Europe (or those whose ancestors came from Europe). From the cloths we wear to the cars we drive to the medicine that prolongs our lives – it all came from European civilization. Even items that were invented, or improved upon, by Asians were inspired by Europe. Asian civilization was relatively stagnant until the Europeans came along and roused them from their slumber. “African” inventors are typically Europeans with just enough African blood to qualify them for an “African History Month” place of honor. All told, I would say that European civilization has done more for us than the individual tree named “the Senator.”

Is it too much to ask for Reuters to publish at least one article decrying the loss of European civilization? I suppose it is; that would be “racist.”

 

 

Affirmative action: The gift that keeps giving

I was reading a news article about a questionable dental procedure on a child. Among the comments was this:

This is frightening; when my daughter was 6 she had two teeth out due a playground injury, and had to attend a dental clinic for the op. When we were called in after the op we found our daughter slumped on a chair with blood still coming from her mouth. When asked when she would come round…..in a couple of hours was the reply. She was a mess….she vomited in reception; in the car and again back home. Slept for a whole day whilst I was by her side. Spent 3 days off school as she was so ill. She took a while to function and get back to normal. My doctor was in agreement that she had been ‘over-dosed’.

Turned out later the anaesthetist: John Evans-Appiah was removed from the surgery after the death of a 10 year old boy (see John Evans-Appiah, Peffermill Surgery, Edinburgh). It appears that Evans-Appiah did not have the qualifications required.

My daughter is know 22 and faired well; attended Uni and graduated with honours….although having Dyslexia. Over the years, since this incident, I have often thought this might have contributed to her Dyslexia? Perhaps I’m wrong – I would welcome a more educated theory.

As soon as I read that, I thought, “I wonder if this is a case of affirmative action/diversity in action.” Sure enough, here’s an official account of what happened back then:

An anaesthetist working in Britain could be banned from practice this month if found guilty of charges of serious professional misconduct over incidents in which a 10 year old boy died during a tooth extraction and a patient undergoing a caesarean section writhed in pain because she was not fully anaesthetised.

The General Medical Council in London was this week hearing evidence in the case of John Evans-Appiah, who came to Britain from Ghana in 1973 after qualifying in Ukraine.

Dr Evans-Appiah, from Leyton, east London, has had 42 jobs since his arrival in Britain. In 1993 he was dismissed from Falkirk Royal Infirmary for temporarily paralysing a patient by giving her the wrong drugs.

In 1998, when the two incidents that gave rise to the GMC charges occurred, he was travelling around Britain working for locum agencies.

In October 1998 he was asked to anaesthetise Darren Denholm, aged 10, who was having a tooth extracted at the Peffermill dental clinic in Edinburgh. Darren had a cardiac arrest. An ambulance arrived, but he could not be revived.

Three weeks later Dr Evans-Appiah was the anaesthetist at Hazel Woolgar’s caesarean section at Maidstone Hospital in Kent. He gave the go-ahead for surgery even though Mrs Woolgar, aged 31, who was having an epidural, said that she could feel cold gel on her abdomen, indicating she was not properly anaesthetised.

Rebecca Poulet QC told the GMC’s professional conduct committee that his failure to anaesthetise Mrs Woolgar caused her to “writhe and scream” with pain.

Dr Evans-Appiah, aged 58, faces 18 charges of serious professional misconduct in relation to the two incidents. In Darren Denholm’s case, he is accused of faking records to hide his mistake, misleading the subsequent investigation, and trying to persuade the dental nurse and the dentist to say, untruthfully, that blood pressure readings had been taken…

While we can’t know for sure whether an anesthesia overdose can cause dyslexia, it does appear that it can have long-term consequences:

Studies in 2003 show that drugs used in general anesthesia kill brain cells in developing rats and mice. Though these studies require follow-up with human populations, some have theorized that the dangers of anesthesia used in children may be greater than previously estimated. One might not only risk death but also interference in brain development, and perhaps long term memory issues or learning disabilities.

Medical schools would do almost anything to get more black graduates. Hospitals would do almost anything to have more black professionals. Patients should do almost anything to avoid putting themselves in harm’s way by allowing a black physician, or a black anesthesiologist, to treat them or their children. If you already know him as a skilled and trustworthy professional, then obviously his race doesn’t make him any less so. But thanks to political correctness, affirmative action and racial quotas, many questionable blacks have been hired into positions they should never have been considered for. I’ve seen it myself.

 

Django Unchained should be illegal

I have not seen Django Unchained; I refuse to support the movie industry with my hard-earned money. But I did read a review of it at American Renaissance. Some excerpts:

In a December 8 appearance on “Saturday Night Live,” the lead actor, Jamie Foxx, explained what the movie is about:

It’s good to be black. Black is the new white. In my new movie, I play a slave. How black is that? I have to wear chains. How whack is that? I get free. I save my wife, and I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that? And how black is that?”

The crowd erupted in laughter, whooping, and applause…

One reviewer, Richard Corliss of Time, mentions Django’s reply when Schultz ask him to be his partner: “Kill white folks and they pay you for it? What’s not to like?” Mr. Corliss calls this “a tantalizing question.” Let us imagine a movie by Mel Gibson, say, in which someone is offered money to assassinate leftwing media types. Would he still think “What’s not to like?” was a “a tantalizing question?” Or would he wail in print about the murderous hatreds of the American Right?…

… As Steve Sailor has noted, a black posted a comment about the movie:

While whites are busy getting offended on our behalf, they miss completely why we are going to see this film. It’s a black man killing white people in masses. I will pay to see that every time.

I’ve seen this film 3 times so far and am going again Saturday night. It’s an awesome movie.

“Awesome” is another way of saying “inspiring.”

Twitchy.com, which tracks twitter messages, found this sort of thing:

“After watching Django, all I wanna do is shoot white people.”

“Still hype off Django. I’m gonna kill some white people today.”

“Django got me wanting to kill white people!”

“Django made me wanna kill so many white people.”

Reading this review, I could not help but be reminded of another article at American Renaissance, about the movie Machete, where we read:

In Hollywood’s latest anti-White film, the hero is a blood-thirsty illegal alien of Latino ethnicity who slaughters white people with a myriad of weapons. White people are presented as the “bad guys.” Even the trailer of the film {snip} begins with the militant Latino telling the viewers that he has a “special message” for the people of Arizona, who valiantly stood up for Western Culture and state sovereignty vis-à-vis a recent law that prescribed penalties for those who aid in the invasion of our country.

Both movies should be illegal, and all those involved with their production should be prosecuted for inciting violence. A defense that the movies are “works of fiction” should be countered with the fact that they are actually thinly veiled messages that are relevant to contemporary America. The messages are: White people are evil and you are justified in killing them as cruelly as possible.

I realize that this form of incitement is a legal grey area, and I’m certain that there will be a comment or two explaining why there can be no prosecution in such cases. But how does our society view such works as The Turner Diaries? It has been described as having incited actual acts of terrorism and crime. You will not find it at your public library. In contrast, you probably will find Machete at your public library. No doubt, Django Unchained will also be available there in a couple of years. A description of The Turner Diaries, at Amazon, reads:

At 9:02 am on Wednesday April 19, 1995, two tons of explosives ripped apart the federal office building in Oklahoma City and the psyche of America. The worst case of domestic terrorism in our history, this explosion killed 169 men, women, and children. The author of this book has written, If [this book] had been available to the general public . . . the Oklahoma bombing would not have come as such a surprise. It has been considered by the Justice Department and other government agencies as the bible of right-wing militia groups, and the FBI believes it provided the blueprint for the Oklahoma City bombing. Barricade Books has published it so America can better understand the cause of racism and extremism.

In other words, it is for educational purposes only. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if ordering it online will get your name added to a government watch list. For sheer psychological impact, a novel cannot come close to the power of a professionally-made movie. If The Turner Diaries was responsible for hundreds of deaths, movies such as Django Unchained and Machete are responsible for thousands. These movies are far more harmful than novels such as The Turner Diaries for another reason: They add fuel to a fire that is already there. Even before the release of these movies, blacks and Mexicans had been murdering whites at unprecedented rates. They build on an anti-white establishment that already used the full force of public schools, the federal government, “higher education” and corporate America (in other words, anybody with power) to promote the idea that whites are evil and “people of color” are good. The movies serve as effective means of reinforcing the hatred of whites that is pounded into our skulls from cradle to grave.

The Turner Diaries is the equivalent of giving a normal, healthy, man a gun and telling him to shoot his neighbors. Django Unchained and Machete are the equivalent of giving the gun to a deranged man, who is already enraged at his neighbors, and telling him to shoot them. Which scenario is more dangerous? It’s true that some readers of The Turner Diaries are already deranged, angry, individuals. But they represent a miniscule number of people when compared to the seething masses of hateful, vengeful, blacks and Mexicans. White violence against blacks and Mexicans is a rare aberration. Black and Mexican violence against whites is a way of life. The last thing we need is to encourage it even more.

 

New York gunman led quiet life…

The recent shooting of firefighters near Rochester, New York, illustrates some major flaws in our so-called justice system. According to the Washington Post:

A man who set his house on fire then lured firefighters to their deaths in a blaze of flames and bullets had attracted little attention since he got out of prison in the 1990s for killing his grandmother, authorities said…

He had served 17 years in prison after the beating death of his 92-year-old grandmother in 1980, for which he had originally been charged with murder but pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter.

What are the details of his grandmother’s murder? It seems that…

According to reports, she was found at the bottom of the basement stairs in her home on Lake Road. She had been beaten with a hammer. Spengler pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 8 1/3 to 25 years behind bars.

While in prison, Spengler did not seem like a man seeking mercy or repentance. I-Team 10 has obtained a copy of his 1997 parole hearing. At that hearing, the commissioner says “you didn’t want to come here today?”

Spengler replied, “I thought it was mandatory.”

When told it was not, Spengler said, “Then it’s not worth the time and effort.”

He was denied parole, but was released six months later after serving two-thirds of the maximum.

If I’m not mistaken, there was a time when murderers were vigorously prosecuted and punished as severely as possible. I get the impression that justice is secondary, while the primary priority is saving court costs. Plea-bargains save a lot of money by both reducing legal expenses and by shortening prison stays. Perhaps, if legal fees weren’t so exorbitant, plea-bargains wouldn’t be so common. Why are legal fees so high? A major factor in rising legal costs is the American Bar Association (ABA). According to the ABA’s own website:

The American Bar Association is the world’s largest voluntary professional organization, with nearly 400,000 members and more than 3,500 entities.  It is committed to doing what only a national association of attorneys can do: serving our members, improving the legal profession, eliminating bias and enhancing diversity, and advancing the rule of law throughout the United States and around the world.

“Serving our members” and “improving the legal profession” can easily be taken to mean “earning them more money” and “making the legal profession more lucrative.”

We can agree that the ABA is a “voluntary” organization in the sense that nobody is forced to become a lawyer. But, in the U.S., lawyers are not given a choice as to whether they wish to be associated with the ABA. If they attend law school, they can thank the ABA for their outrageously high tuition. Sherwood Ross, back in 2009, put it well:

By requiring law schools to hire more full-time professors and add new buildings, the American Bar Association(ABA) is driving up the cost of a legal education to unprecedented levels, two legal education reformers say. Tuitions at some ABA-accredited law schools have breached the $40,000 per year mark, forcing many students to assume debts that will take years to pay off. The matter is so dire that university presidents “describe a situation where the ABA would…threaten…disaccreditation of the law school if they would not play ball,” write Lawrence Velvel and Kurt Olson in their new book “The Gathering Peasants’ Revolt In American Legal Education”(Doukathsan). Velvel is cofounder and dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover(MSL) and Olson is an assistant professor of law at the school…

Other critics have bluntly described the ABA as a “guild” to enrich law school professors. Velvel and Olson charge the ABA has drastically lowered the permissible student to full time faculty ratio, “thus forcing schools to double or triple the number of expensive full time faculty members. At the same time, the ABA’s method of calculating the ratio would not permit even the fractional counting of adjunct faculty members, thus reducing an institution’s ability to reduce costs by using far less expensive part-time faculty members, even judges and expert practitioners.” In a secret student-to-faculty standard that is far more stringent than the written one known to the public, Velvel and Olson write, the ABA has pressured deans to adopt a 15 to 1 or even a 12 to 1 student-to-faculty ratio.

The ABA seems to be particularly keen on diversity. They have an elaborate subsection of their website devoted to diversity along with seminars and so on*. For an organization that suckles at the teats of crime, this should not be surprising. Diversity breeds crime. Crime breeds more legal complexity (and corruption of course). More legal complexity breeds an increased need for experts. A need for experts breeds protective guilds. Protective guilds breed higher prices. Higher prices breed cost-saving measures – such as plea-bargains and early release. Plea-bargains and early release breed repeat offenders and, in this case, two dead firemen.

Another thing I wanted to point out, regarding this shooting, is that the gunman was not allowed to own guns. Obviously, this did not stop him. What do the “gun-control” advocates say to this? That’s an easy one: They don’t want any of us to own guns – except for the military and law-enforcement. Because everyone knows they can do no wrong.

*I don’t think we can make a distinction between the diversity the ABA strives for within its own ranks and diversity in society at large. Incompetent, and corrupt, lawyers also feed the legal profession by creating new complexities and novel cases.