A critical piece of Palo Alto history that should not be forgotten

The criminal case against Palo Alto officers Craig Lee and Michael Kan

May 3, 2005

Dear Mr. George Kennedy & Ms. Karyn Sinunu:

I am writing to you to request that your office retry the criminal case against Palo Alto police officers Michael Kan and Craig Lee. I would like to make some observations and comments regarding the recently completed trial in this matter wherein the jury ultimately hung 8 to 4 for guilty. I would then like to comment on the importance of this case being retried. I hope you will consider all of my comments in the constructive manner in which they are intended.

Comments re the recently completed trial of Defendants Kan & Lee

First I think it is important to acknowledge the fine work performed during the course of all of the proceedings in this matter by Deputy District Attorney Peter Waite. Not only was his preparation and presentation of the case outstanding, but it was apparent that his confidence in the strength of the case grew as the matter proceeded. No doubt the case was not tried without some mistakes and at least one questionable judgment call, but, given all of the many pressures and roles being balanced, it was an outstanding job. By the time the case went to the jury it was my observation/opinion that Mr. Waite had out performed the very talented attorneys for the defendants. (I sat through the entire PX and trial in this matter.)

From the perspective of a former public defender and trial lawyer it was clear to me that Mr. Waite and his investigative team (Sgt. Mike Denson and Sgt. Ron Watson from the PAPD) left few stones unturned in an effort to assure that the prosecution in this matter was both professionally managed and aggressively pursued.

I had no sense during the trial of this matter, despite the obvious political pressures and ramifications for the entire prosecution team, that at anytime that the prosecution team treated this case lightly or in any fashion differently than any other serious felony matter. Finally, Mr. Waite, in an example that more public servants should model, made himself available to members of the public who had endless questions for and observations to share with him.

During the jury selection process in this case Mr. Waite’s questions and the nature of the responses by prospective jurors re the role of race, racial profiling, the right of citizens to be free of undue and unwarranted harassment by the police etc., were both fascinating and instructive re the current public mood towards law enforcement. Had the voir dire process been taped it would have made a provocative documentary on the current status of the relationship between law enforcement and the community. As indicted by the responses during voir dire, as it currently stands, the relationship appears tenuous at best.

There were numerous jurors who expressed just barely restrained anger re the recent killing of Bic Cau Tran by San Jose police officer Chad Marshall and similarly deep concern re other recent high profile killings by members of the SJPD.

What came across strongest from the jury selection process is that both the depth and width of anger and concern over misconduct by law enforcement in this county is much greater than reflected by the mainstream media in Santa Clara County. Whereas the conventional wisdom has been that police cases are hard to successfully prosecute in this county the current dynamically shifting demographics, combined with a well informed citizenry re police misconduct issues, may well have changed the landscape permanently. Given the above, it would appear that police prosecutions are much more like to be successful in this county now and in the future.

During the course of the jury selection the defense exercised a peremptory challenge against the one black female who made it into the jury box. Given the quality of her responses to the questions posed by attorneys for both sides it was clear that this prospective juror was totally free of bias for either side.

Despite the fact that Mr. Waite made an appropriate Batson/Wheeler objection that the defense, specifically attorney Harry Stern, had exercised the challenge in a in a racially discriminatory fashion the judge, Andrea Bryan, declined to ask defense council for a showing of specific bias (to establish a race–neutral reasons for the strike) or to find a prima facie case for requiring a response by the defense. The judge should have reseated the juror in the presence of the entire panel as a clear message to the defense that the racist removal of a fair minded juror would not be tolerated. (Case law clearly supports the notion that one race based peremptory challenge is sufficient to trigger the remedies contemplated by Batson/Wheeler and its descendants.)

Given that only three African-Americans were in the initial jury panel of approximately 160 perspective jurors called for in this case, there is little doubt that the discriminatory strike of the one black female to make it into the jury box denied the people a jury made up of a cross-section of the community and thus a fair trial.

The following quotes serve as a reminder of the impact of a discriminatory challenge based on race in the context of this case: … “The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community.” Batson V. Kentucky, 476 U.S, at 77 (1986).

“The need for public confidence is especially high in cases involving race-related crimes. In such cases, emotions in the affected community will inevitably be heated and volatile. Public confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system is essential for preserving community peace in trials involving race related crimes.” (Citations omitted). Finally, as to Judge Bryan’s role in denying the community a fair trial the following is pertinent: “Be it at the hands of the state or the defense, if a court allows the juror to be excluded because of group bias, it is a willing participant in a scheme that could only undermine the very foundation of our system of justice—our citizens’ ” (citations omitted).

In addition to the failure of Judge Andrea Bryan to perform her constitutional responsibility to ensure the selection of a fair jury in this matter it was apparent that the court allowed the atmosphere surrounding the trial to favor the defense. Not only did the court appear to bend over backwards to rule in favor of the defense on issues where you would normally not expect such favorable rulings, but the court personnel, including the bailiffs, routinely acted with favoritism to members of law enforcement. This included providing preferential seating in the courtroom to members of law enforcement, to allowing outbursts by law enforcement spectators to go unpunished while, at the same time, closely monitoring the conduct of non-law enforcement citizens in the courtroom to the point of a constitutional chill on access.

Despite all of the efforts by the court and its personnel to tamper with the jury selection, evidentiary rulings, deny equal access to the courtroom to the public versus members of law enforcement, all in a thinly veiled attempt to direct a verdict of acquittal, 8 members of the community still rendered a verdict of guilty refusing, in the greatest tradition of independent jurors, to buckle under the weight of the intimidating atmosphere allowed to exist by Judge Andrea Bryan. All of this speaks volumes re the strength of the evidence in this case and the fine job done by the prosecution team.

Despite the fact that only 8 of the 12 jurors in this case voted for guilty the verdict was still one of historic proportions in Santa Clara County. I know of no other case in recent Santa Clara County history where 8 jurors have voted to convict police officers for the beating of an African-American citizen. This result calls out for a retrial.

Conclusion re why case should be retried.

Community sentiment: I have enclosed an editorial from the Palo Alto Daily News, Accused officers should be retried, April 20, 2005, outlining some of the reasons why this case should be retried and encouraging your office to do so, both in the interest of the Palo Alto Police Department and the Community at large.

Given the statements attributed to Karyn Sinunu in the San Jose Mercury News (enclosed), (April 19, 2005), that the district attorney usually retries hung juries and given that in this case 8 citizens voted for guilty under the difficult conditions described in the first section of this letter, failure to do so in this case would feed into the perception that there is two standards of justice in this community, one for the ordinary citizen and one for police officers.

Given comments in a recent article in The Recorder, April 27, 2005, that there will be a chase for endorsements by police and law enforcement groups by the presumed candidates for District Attorney in 2006, and given Ms. Sinunu’s apparent intent to run for this position, failure to retry this case might well be seen as decision based on political expediency rather than the merits of retying this case.

It is clear that this case would likely not have come to light but for the courageous act of a few “whistle blowing” members of the PAPD willing to break down the traditional “code of silence” that so perniciously permeates much of law enforcement in this community. By the jury’s verdict in this case the community has spoken: it is time, once and for all, to send the message that the so-called “code of silence” will not longer be tolerated by those we entrust with the awesome power of the badge. Failure to retry this case would discourage officers in the future to speak out against rogue officers in their ranks and, as result, put the public at risk of more unwarranted beatings and deaths.

Given all of the above, the strength of the evidence presented in the first trial, the resources and efforts expended by the prosecution, the strong likelihood of a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt at a second trial, the efforts of the trial judge to sabotage the prosecution’s case in the first trial, and the strong public support for a retrial in this matter it is my request that you exercise your prosecutorial discretion in favor of a retrial in this case.

Post Script:

This letter requesting a retrial of Kan & Lee was originally sent out on May 3, 2005. Ultimately the DA declined to retry the case against officers Kan & Lee. In a miscarriage of justice Kan & Lee were allowed to plead guilty to one count each of disturbing the peace, as an infraction, with a maximum punishment of a $250 fine.

Benny King and the criminalization of addiction in America

Benny King is a gregarious, good-hearted, God-fearing 53-year-old black man from Alabama who shouldn’t be in prison.

But he is.

Mr. King is serving 14-months at the federal correctional institution in Jesup, Georgia, for violating conditions of his supervised release; conditions ordered as part of King’s sentence over eleven years ago, in 2005, for bank fraud. Mr. King’s underlying conduct in that nonviolent, low-level federal criminal case (involving stolen checks) bears no relation to his current incarceration other than the fact that, it too, like the entirety of King’s nonviolent criminal history, was a byproduct of decades-long untreated drug addiction.

You see, just like hundreds of thousands of poor, disproportionately black and brown Americans sidelined from American life – stuffed out of sight in state and federal penal institutions across the U.S. – King is serving time for one, and only one, unconscionable reason: he suffers from a substance abuse problem. He drinks.

Mr. King started drinking when he was just twelve years old and the problem got worse at age 14 when his mother died; it became still worse, a bare three years later, when his father passed too. Poverty, tragedy, and alcohol abuse are a multi-generational scourge in the King family.

And for Benny King, as with many alcoholics, when the alcohol flows, other substances quickly join stream; marijuana, cocaine, whatever’s around. As anyone who has battled drug addiction knows (or equally, has had a friend or loved one fight that hellacious war), once the substance-spigot starts its drip, the situation often spirals, becoming impossible – without effective, often repeated, long-term inpatient drug treatment – to stop.

That’s why what happened this past November 16 in a courtroom in Montgomery, Alabama – when Senior U.S. District Judge W. Harold Albritton III threw the proverbial book at Mr. King because he relapsed, using alcohol and drugs in the wake of his sister’s death –– should outrage every American who cares about reducing our abominably bloated prison population.

Using an official transcript for reference, here is an abbreviated version of the proceedings:

Judge Albritton: Mr. King, you are charged with two violations. It’s alleged that you violated the special condition that required you to participate in a program for substance abuse. You violated that term of your supervision by showing up at Herring House, where you were to be given treatment, and they would not admit you because you had been drinking alcohol. The second violation is a charge that you violated the standard condition that you refrain from excessive use of alcohol or any controlled substance.

Assistant Federal Defender Donnie W. Bethel: I have a few things I would like to say, Your Honor. Mr. King was arrested on a Thursday. The following Saturday, his sister passed away from cancer. It was an older sister, 12 years his senior. It was a sister who, after his mother died when Mr. King was a boy, had essentially been his surrogate mother. We were back in court on a preliminary hearing that following week, and at that point I asked for him to be released on bond so he could attend his sister’s funeral. That was vehemently opposed by the prosecution, by probation, by the United States Marshal Service, which I am still befuddled by. I know what it’s like to lose a sibling. I was really taken aback that there’s such a lack of basic Christian compassion in the criminal justice system, that we would do everything we could to deny a man simply the opportunity to attend his sister’s funeral.

I convinced Judge Moore to release him to my custody. Everybody was thrilled that Mr. King was able to attend the funeral. At the funeral, he played the piano and he sang. He’s actually a talented musician. And before I left that day, every member of his family made a point in coming to me and thanking me for taking the time out of my weekend to bring Mr. King up there to attend his sister’s funeral. And I say that only to make this point. This isn’t a violation that involves Mr. King out on the street with a gun; Mr. King selling dope; Mr. King committing some other crime, burglary, theft of property. Mr. King has a drug problem. Mr. King knows he has a drug problem. That’s what this case is about.

He would like another opportunity to go to the Herring House to get some drug treatment, because that’s what he needs. And I think we’ve become so callous, so used to in the federal criminal justice system to shipping people off to prison, that nobody would bat an eye if, for having a drink and getting high, we’re going to send Benny King off to prison for 14 months. I think we need to step back and say, let’s stop doing the easy thing, and let’s do the right thing.

Mr. King, tell the judge what your plan is after you’re released.

Mr. King: My plan is to go to Florida, be with my fiancée, get married. I’ve already started the process of enrolling for a GED to get my diploma. And I’m going to take some college courses at night. I’m going to work doing paving and construction, and also I’m working for a church called New Jerusalem Baptist Church in Ft. Myers, Florida.

I violated, Your Honor. And I know you can’t overlook that, and I don’t expect you to. But I was – when I left and went home and saw my sister. And she was fading away, and I just – which was no excuse, but I used that as an excuse to drink. And when I drink, I get high. I violated, and I apologize, and I ask the mercy of the Court. But I’m just going to be honest with everybody. I’m tired. Benny King is tired today. I’m tired. I’m not trying to pacify nobody ears.

Mr. Bethel: He’s 52 years old. Give him another chance. Let him go to the Herring House. He’s clean now. He’s not going to be positive when he shows up down there this time. Let’s get him straightened out. Let’s just do what we were planning to do a month ago.

Assistant United States Attorney Curtis Ivy, Jr.: So coming forward now with all these great plans and ideas is an easy thing, but it’s not going to work. What’s proper in this case is 14 months’ imprisonment with no supervised release to follow.

Mr. Bethel: Anybody who thinks that it’s easy for a drug addict not to use drugs has never had someone close to them who’s been a drug addict. I have. It’s not easy. No matter what you do to help them, no matter how much they go through, it is the most difficult thing I’ve ever seen in my life for someone to overcome a drug addiction. And that’s what we’re talking about. Talking about criminalizing this case, drug addiction.

Judge Albritton: Under the law, being a drug addict is not a defense. In this case, Mr. King has been given more than one opportunity to try to get himself straightened out. I’m sympathetic with you – and I’m sorry about your sister’s death. This time I’m going to sentence you to the maximum under the sentencing guidelines of 14 months, with no supervised release to follow. You’ll be on your own after that. The court system and the probation office and everybody has done all they can to help you break your habit.

Just a day after Benny King was “maxed out” by Judge Albritton in Alabama, The Washington Post’s Lenny Bernstein wrote about a new “landmark” report authored by the U.S. Surgeon General calling the drug crisis ‘a moral test’ for America.” Distressingly, the report noted that, “[i]n 2015, substance abuse disorders affected 20.8 million people in the U.S., as many as those with diabetes, and 1 ½ times as many as those with cancer. Yet, only one in ten receives treatment.”

Echoing Benny King’s defense counsel, the Surgeon General said: “We would never tolerate a situation where only one in 10 people with cancer or diabetes gets treatment, and yet we do that with substance abuse disorders. Regardless of persistent beliefs, addiction is a brain disease, not a moral failing.”

And then, just a month after Benny King began his newly imposed $31,000+ taxpayer-funded prison term – over four hours away by car from his fiancée and family– a rigorous, scholarly study by the Brennan Center for Justice convincingly demonstrated that 39% of prisoners in the U.S. should not be in prison. Specifically, the study found (1) that “39% of the nationwide prison population (576,000 people) is behind bars with little public safety rationale,” and (2) “25% of prisoners (364,000 people), almost all non-violent, lower-level offenders, would be better served by alternatives to incarceration such as treatment, community service, or probation.”

Benny King is one of these sad, sad, stories in the sea of the overly incarcerated.

Writing about another equally sad case with many parallels to Benny King, Tamra Ryan, CEO of the Women’s Bean Project, wrote: “Jessie is now back in prison and we are unlikely to hear from her again. While she may not have access to drugs in prison, she will also likely not receive drug treatment. Instead, she will do her time and, at some point, start over again without addressing the underlying issues that led to her relapse. Jessie’s addiction and inability to cope with stressors have been criminalized.” Ryan concluded “the time has come to address the underlying issue of addiction with treatment, not punishment, so that the potential of the individual is not wasted.”

Exactly.

We don’t need more drug addicted people like Benny King or “Jessie” filling up this nation’s jails and prisons. They’re already overly full. We’ve got to start moving in the other direction. Now.

The City of Palo Alto’s Garvey Train

Unbelievable exorbitant pay and benefits which the City of Palo Alto pays its employees and SEIU union members. 517 employees being paid over $ 100,000 per year plus benefits and a guaranteed retirement is extortion. Its a gravey train off our backs.

ROI?

No City employee is worth half what they are paid because the pay justification argument of comparing Cities to each other is irrational and flawed to start. When one ‘shake down enterprise,’ (Palo Alto) compares itself to a neighboring ‘shake down enterprise’ (ex. Mountain View, Menlo Park), the wages and benefits can only go up because No City employee, Council Member or SEIU negotiator has ever or would ever suggest that wages and benefits go down. Who votes against themselves? Comparing one incompetent and corrupt city with another, is a ridiculous justification. Also, the easiest way for Council Members to buy votes is to use Tax Payer money to essentially bribe City employees. Crooked.

Facts nothing but the facts

So let’s look at the facts. Cities are unionized. Yet City employees have no competition. Cities produce no products. City employees have no sales or production quotas to meet and no competing business threatening their jobs existence. City employees are rarely if ever fired, even when they are caught ripping the city off, as they did several years ago when Palo Alto employees were caught using City trucks, equipment and materials in their own ‘side’ construction business.

Or when the City gives away million dollar home loans to lure newly ‘anointed’ officials. God knows what goes on now. As a rule, City employment is secure, extremely well paid, low stress, with guaranteed retirement, generous medical, dental, sick days, personal days, vacation days. When do they have any time to work? The private job market does not provide anything close to such wild compensation, stability and perqs for workers like the 517 Palo Alto employees who are paid over $ 100,000 per year, plus benefits.

Fair wage?

Why not compare City employees to comparable workers in small businesses and private industry locally. The average income of all workers in Santa Clara County is about $ 58,000 and local Billionaires skew that number steeply higher. But still, are City employees worth 72 % more than average workers? No. If anything, City workers should be paid less than average workers because City employment is rock solid, low stress, with astronomical guaranteed benefits plus retirement.

If City employees really were 72 % better than private industry workers, there would be a mad rush to hire away these ‘gifted’ individuals by private industry. But there is no such ‘mad rush’ for city workers because everyone knows that City wages and benefits are propped up and extorted by the SEIU, unions, weak willed city negotiators and council members. I could be wrong but judging by the results, city employee pay, benefits, corruption and lack of accountability sure makes it look like the SEIU and City management are good candidates for a RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) prosecution.

Undeserved wages and benefits

City employees do not deserve the pay and benefits they are currently receiving and they should definitely not be given any increases at all. That’s how I see it. And I’m sure if more people knew about this scandal and waste and had the time to do something about it, there would be a mob with pitch forks and torches at City Hall. Lucky for you, most people with real jobs are too busy working and stressed out to pay attention to City corruption and mismanagement. Maybe they’ll hear about it next election….when City employees come back for more.

Palo Alto Police Chief Set to Retire

Palo Alto police chief Dennis Burns announced yesterday that he is retiring at the end of the year after 35 years with the city and eight years in the top position and several people who are typically police critics are praising Burns for his work.

Burns, 59, started working for the police department in 1982, and for a short time beginning in 2010, he also served as the interim Fire Chief.

He was busy during this time, and Palo Alto criminal defense attorney Tom Nolan, who worked with Burns when he was on one of the police advisory committees. Burns is “an exceptionally hard worker “, he said the praise is noteworthy considering that Nolan’s law firm often represents clients who were who who are arrested by Burns officers. “He’s the kind of cheap that Paula Walter deserves, “Nolan said, calling him intelligent and thoughtful.

Retired Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge LaDoris Cordell, who served on the committee that shows the finalist for the chief position, called Burns a “decent person “, who has done well for the city. “I am very pleased that he is the person we came up with to be the chief, “said Cordell, a former Palo Alto city Council woman. And he’s proven that he was up for the job, she said. Burns took over after former police chief Lynn Johnson resigned in 2008 amid accusations of racial profiling.

The next chapter

As for why he is retiring, Burns said it was simply time, according to a statement issued by the city. “I’m looking forward to the next chapter, “he said. “The organization is stable, and we have a capable, professional team in place. I am confident that we have the right personnel and organizational structure to ensure the Palo Alto Police Department will maintain its high standards and dedication to protecting the community,”

Throughout his career, Burns has worked patrol, served as a SWAT team leader, a detective and detective supervisor, a crime prevention officer, and a detective tactics instructor.

In 2015, Burns earned a total salary of $243,390.  Burns was known for going out on patrol, even during his time as police chief. In 2012, he caught a couple of burglary suspects in East Palo Alto, after he put on it in uniform and went out. But some of Burns decisions have raised concerns over the years.

In 2011, Burns got heat for allowing Palo Alto police to provide mutual aid to Oakland when cops violently clashed with occupy protesters.

City manager James Keane said the city will conduct a nationwide search for a new police chief. In the meantime, Captain Ron Watson, a 26 year veteran, will serve as interim police chief, he said. But Watson has indicated that he will not be a candidate for the permanent police chief position, according to Keene.

California Public Records Request Reveals Chief Dennis’s Burns private state retirement party.  

Retirement Invite List 1

Retirement Invite List 2

Retirement Inviie_Former Employees 1

 

For full rendering: Daily Post  Article Powered by: Dragon Diction

Kaepernick Praises Castro’s Education and Health Care System

Colin Kaepernick should receive significant credit for shinning a light onto the corruption within the American justice system which routinely sends innocent people to prison while targeting the poor and people of color who lack the resources to defend themselves from bogus charges and unwarranted uses of excessive force.

16% of the people exonerated of crimes they did not commit since1989 actually plead guilty to the crime they did not commit.  43% of the people exonerated of crimes they did not commit in 2015 actually plead guilty to the crime they did not commit.

“Our criminal justice system has lost its way,” said David O. Markus, a prominent Miami defense attorney. “For a long time, it was our country’s crown jewel, built on the principle that it was better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent be wrongfully convicted. Now sadly, the system accepts and even encourages innocent people to plead guilty.”

“Record Number of People Exonerated in 2015”

“Study Predicts Wrongful Conviction Rate in U.S. at 5,000 to 10,000 Per Year

With that said Kaepernick’s comments on Castro’s educational and health care system shows how little he knows of what he speaks.

Castro did provide free education however there is a catch to cuba-1receiving that education; in addition to learning the fundamentals every student is indoctrinated into the socialist/ideological policies of the Castro regime requiring them to promote those policies even after their schooling ends.

Using a militarized police state Castro has oppressed or locked up or shot critics of his policies.  Hence the very educational system that Kaepernick lauds is one which would send him to prison for kneeling during the Anthem.  And that is the price that a society would pay for nationalizing an educational system to the degree that Kaepernick seeks.

You don’t need to lift up a ruthless dictator in order to point out that more money should be spent on education than prisons; you don’t need to lift up a ruthless dictator to point out that the health care system needs fixing; for in doing so one undermines his own argument by comparing the remedies needed for one system to that of another failed system.

“I also agree with the investment in free universal health care,…”  Kaeperncick.

There is no such thing as “free” in “free universal health care” or for that matter anything that would or could be provided by a government.

The total pay and compensation of the highest paid Santa Clara County doctor, Hollister Brewster, is $789,685.  By comparison, Governor Jerry Brown, received a total of $268,039 in total pay and compensation for the same year.  Brown oversees the total welfare of 39 million Californians while Brewster oversees only the medical care of 1.78 million Santa Clara County residents.

The total pay and compensation of the top ten Santa Clara County, (Socialism), doctors is $4,602,000.

As you can see there is no such thing as “free” health care.

Since Kaepernick seeks to have the government provide this “free universal health care” to all than someone is going to have to pay for it.  There is a way to pay for it and that is to tax every dollar earned over $1,000,000 at 90%.

Kaepernick earned $16,765,753 this year.  Using the 39.6% tax rate up to $1 million and 90% for every dollar earned there after Kaepernick’s tax bill for 2016 would be $14,585,177.  His take home pay would be $2,180,575.  $2 million would still place Kaepernick in the top 1 percent of American earners and therefore he should have no complaints about earning so much money compared to the other 253,217,000 American adults, the 99%,cuba-4 even though he would be handing over the majority of the fruit of his labor to others, “so that they can have free healthcare.”

It is astonishing at how naïve and ignorant a person can be in advocating for installing and increasing the power of an elected despotism while at the same time criticizing the corruption of that elected despotism which resulted from the very power that the person previously provided to it; more power than what the governed initially intended it to have all in exchange for fraudulent services.

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”  Thomas Jefferson

There is a way and a means to decrease health care costs while providing for greater coverage of health problems for every citizen but that way and that means is not to increase the dictatorial powers of the government but it is to empower every citizen by increasing the fruit of each citizen’s labor and the amount of fruit each citizen retains after paying the government for its services.

I can hear Kaepernick’s rebuttal now, “we don’t need to pay doctors $250,000 to $500,000 a year.”  That’s right we don’t, the highest paid doctors in Cuba earn $67 a month.  Thus, we don’t need to pay football players more than a half a million dollars a year either.

There is always more than meets the eye than what the propaganda machine advertises to the masses like how Cuba’s healthcare has been artificially propped up with an unsustainable system of subsidies that denies people the fruit of their labor while handing it over to government administrators.

Just because Cuba attempts to provide healthcare to everyone does not mean that its healthcare is quality healthcare for everyone or that on average the treatment is as half as effective and beneficial as other countries.  If health care consists of providing no more than an aspirin for every health problem, from cancer to a cold and from malaria to a compound fracture, so long as everyone receives an aspirin, well that’s not much of a healthcare system.  Yet it appears that even in Cuba the “haves” receive better care than the “have nots.” 

“The truths and tales of Cuban healthcare”

“Shock report: Cuba is not the medical paradise advertised”

“THIS IS THE FAMOUS ‘GREAT AND FREE HEALTHCARE’ THAT REGULAR CUBANS RECEIVE”

If Cuba is the fountain of youth for healthcare as asserted by Kaepernick one would expect thousands of Americans to flock there for treatment, including Kaepernick, now that Obama has opened the door.  Those on the far left who promote socialist programs as the panacea to society’s problems reveal their hypocrisy when they themselves do not want to be subjected to those very same policies nor limited to those services that they seek to implement and enforce on everyone else.

There is a reason why Cubans flee Cuba’s free education and healthcare to obtain freedom to bear the fruit of their own labor.

“Surge in Cuban immigration to U.S. continues into 2016”

39 professional baseball players defected from Cuba in order to bear the fruit of their labor.

Unregulated capitalism and unregulated socialism have this in common, they both take the fruit of the labor of the majority and place it into the hands of a controlling minority they just use different means to achieve their ends.  Kaepernick would do well to bear this in mind the next time he espouses an economic system that does not achieve that which he seeks to.

“When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship.”  Harry S. Truman

 

One Radical Electric Mountain Bike

st-3It’s a bird; it’s a plane; no, it’s the Stealth electric bike one of the fastest and most rugged electric bikes on the market.  Stealth Bikes of Australia is manufacturing three handcrafted models: the B-52; the STEALTH F-37 and the STEALTH H-52  for a variety of missions.

The B-52 sets the pace for the others with a 5200 WATT motor pushing the two wheeled trail blazer up to a top speed of 49 mph, (80km/h) and a range of 49 miles on a single charge.

The 1.5kWh battery will charge an empty battery in 2 hours.  Standard USD-8 Forks allow for tuning for a variety of road surfaces.

st-1If you are looking for a mountain bike that will effortlessly speed you up one side of any mountain to enjoy the free ride down the other and still bring you back home; this is the bike for you.

A truly “Plug and Play” bike for 2017.

 

 

 

Top Speed Video:

 

America Rebukes Obama and the Washington Establishment

With the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton the People of America have sent an emphatic message to all other elected officials and those  no-clintonappointed by them and that message is; “We’re fed up with the way you are running America and you better do something different and better.”

How else can you explain that one of the two worst candidates out of an initial pool of 23 in this year’s election has become president?

All you need to know is 93% of the vote in the District of Columbia went to Hillary.

The District of Columbia is home to Washington Lifers and those who want to manipulate them.  Not surprisingly it is also one of the wealthiest areas in the nation.  Public servants and those who feed off them enriching themselves through implementing socialist programs at the expense of the middle class and everyone else.

trumpCoupling Trump’s win with both Houses of Congress going to the Republicans the nation has clearly conveyed that they have given Obama an “F” grade
for his presidency.

Trump Votes For Hillary

hillary-the-rapist-2Yes that’s right.  Regardless of how one dismisses Trump’s latest revelation of demeaning women in order to justify the ends, a Republican President, Trump can no longer win the election.

Perhaps that was the plan from the beginning, to prop up Trump because he was the only Republican Candidate Hillarydonald-and-bill Clinton could defeat.  If it was it worked to perfection.

Even if there were no conspiracy to sabotage the Republicans and regardless of what Trump says to his supporters, (He’s a salesman telling them what they want to hear), Trump’s actions clearly show that he wants Hillary to win the election for President of the United States instead of a Republican.

donald-and-hillaryIf Trump obstinately remains in the race than Hillary will win and he knows it and therefore wants Hillary to win.

Are they laughing at us?

If Trump wants to defeat Hillary he would step aside and allow Pence or someone else like Paul Ryan to challenge Hillary.  By refusing to step down Trump is declaring by his actions that he wants Hillary and the Democrats to win.

If you are a Republican and the last thing you want is Hillary to be President you can no longer justify supporting Trump’s Titanic.

To Vote For Trump Is To Vote For Hillary.

Senator John McCain has rebuked Trump and will no longer support his candidacy.  What is astounding is that rather than vote for the most viable small government candidate in the race, Libertarian Gary Johnson, whose on the ballot in all 50 states McCain will write in the name of someone who has absolutely no chance of winning and thereby give the White House to Hillary and Bill.  McCain wants Hillary to win more than he wants Trump to lose.

What is baffling is how evangelical Christians can support Hillary Clinton, who has their worst interest at heart, but cannot support Gary Johnson whose social policies on thepolls divisive abortion and gay marriage are the same as Clinton’s but who seeks greater freedom and prosperity in every other way than Clinton does.

If McCain is not capable of leaving the heard of lemmings following the pied-piper than no wonder the vast majority of Americans would rather stick to that which is not working expecting a different result.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  Albert Einstein
Related Articles:

Hillary’s Hypocrisy

clinton-pic-3Oh the deception and hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

The New York Times determined that Trump could have taken a $916 million loss in his 1995 tax return enabling him to take advantage of an IRS tax law which would allow him to avoid paying taxes for up to 18 years due to the loss.

Clinton blasted Trump at a campaign rally in Toledo, Ohio over the revelation of Trump’s tax deduction from 1995.

“While millions of American families, including mine and yours, were working hard and paying our fair share, it seems he was contributing nothing to our nation. Imagine that,” Clinton said. “In other words, Trump was taking from America with both hands and leaving the rest of us with the bill.”  Hillary Clinton

Did Hillary pay one more dime to the IRS than was required of her over the last 20 years?  I think not.

Who among the 250 million citizens in the United States eligible to pay taxes would willingly not take advantage of any tax deduction to lower the amount they have to pay to the IRS?  Hillary needs to name one U.S. Citizen that knowingly and willingly paid more in taxes to the IRS than was required of him or her by the IRS.

Who among the millions of democrats would willingly pay more to the IRS than they have too, including the billionaires and millionaires, (Mark Cuban, Tom Steyer, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Sigourney Weaver, Meryl Streep, Robert De Nero, etc…), who are supporting Clinton?

Clinton is denigrating Trump for doing what she and her supporters do and that is to pay as little to the IRS as possible.

Bill and Hillary made $109,000 in interest and dividends from 2015 and took advantage of $3,000 in capital losses carried over from prior years in order to pay as little to the IRS as possible.

Even Warren Buffet, $60 Billion net worth, who pays a lower tax rate than his secretary calls for higher taxes on himself and his billionaire peers does not pay more to the IRS than he is required too.  Instead he gives his money to charity like his peers.  Hmm, could that be because they know that the government would waste a good portion of their money on needless jobs before a tiny percentage ended up where all of it was supposed to go?

Proof is in the pudding as they say.

Hillary Clinton wants to create a 4 percent surcharge on every dollar earned beyond the first $5 million regardless of how the income was earned.

How many actors, actresses and professional athletes are going to like that?  How many of Mark Cuban’s Dallas Maverick’s basketball players earning over $5 million a year will be voting for Hillary?

Since Clinton claims that raising more money for more government run services by increasing the tax rate on Americans is the way to fix society’s economic ills surely she should be willing to retroactively pay this higher tax rate on the money she earned the last two years to set an example for the rest of us.

Hillary has a net worth anywhere is $31.3 million and Bill’s is at $80 million.  Bill and Hillary made $10.6 million in 2015 and $28 million in 2014 with a tax rate of 30.2% or 2015 and 32% for 2014.

Applying the 4% surcharge that Hillary desires to implement both her and Bill should pay an additional $224,000 for 2015 to the IRS and an additional $920,000 for 2014 to the IRS.  Paying a little higher tax bill will not harm their standard of living therefore there is no excuse for Hillary and Bill not to pay more to the IRS for the last two years the same way Hillary wants everyone else to pay more.

Hillary and the Democrats believe that they can tax and spend their way out of the problems vexing the nation but that is not how economies are fixed.  Unchecked socialism always fails by collapsing in on itself unable to pay for the ever increasing demand for services from an ever decreasing revenue stream regardless of how much you tax the people.

“Obamacare is the Craziest Thing  Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton acknowledges that Obamacare works for the poor who are on government subsidies, who historically would have received Medicaid to begin with, because they cannot work or afford health care on their own but that Obamacare doesn’t work for the millions of other families struggling to make ends meet.

“So you’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 bill-clintonmillion more people have health care and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It’s the craziest thing in the world,” Bill Clinton said.

What Hillary said about Trump taking from America could also be applied to the millions who are receiving Obamacare at the expense of hard the hard working poor.

“While millions of American families, including mine and yours, (are) working hard and paying our fair share, it seems (they) are contributing nothing to our nation. Imagine that,” Clinton said. “In other words, (these people) are taking from America with both hands and leaving the rest of us with the bill.”

The question is, why do Bill and Hillary not want to raise the income levels of the poor so that they can afford health care on their own without the need of becoming dependent upon the government and dependent upon those working 60 hours a week?  Why does Hillary want you to work an additional 20 hours a week to pay the healthcare costs for someone else when that health care could be provided by decreasing costs and increasing the living wage?

The true solution to societies’ economic ills is to create an economic game which increases competition between the highest number of competitors.  Teddy Roosevelt understood this principle.

“As the United States became increasingly urban and industrial, it acquired many of the attributes common to industrial nations—overcrowded cities, poor working conditions, great economic disparity, and the political dominance of big business. At the turn of the twentieth century, Americans had begun to look for ways to address some of these problems. As chief executive, Roosevelt felt empowered by the people to help ensure social justice and economic opportunity through government regulation…. he often stated that there must be reform in order to stave off socialism; if government did not act, the people would turn to more extreme measures to seek remedies.”  Teddy Roosevelt

Rather than create a welfare state by taxing the wealthy coal companies to provide government services for the striking coal workers Teddy used the government’s hammer to force the companies and the workers to settle their differences whichteddy became known as the “Square Deal.”  The Square Deal worked to balance competing interests to create a fair deal for all sides: labor and management, consumer and business, developer and conservationist.”

By dismantling the too big to fail banks that are teetering once again and by breaking up the corporate monopolies that the Clinton’s helped create the economy will swing back into the sweet spot of highest competition which benefits everyone

Greater competition forces businesses to pay more in wages and health care to their workers which removes any necessity for the government to step in with its inefficient and ineffective services.  By freeing up developers’ tax burdens and other associated costs they can produce a greater supply of housing to the market and thereby decrease the skyrocketing housing costs that are plaguing the poor and middle class.  There is no tax policy that can fix the lack of housing in the job centric areas of the nation only economic rules and stimulation to those who build housing.  All one needs to do to is look back in time to when there was a surplus of housing in the 1950s to 1970s to understand how this works.

Hillary and Bill’s past policies of decreasing competition and the buying power of average Americans reveals that they do not want to increase competition by eliminating the monopolies from the market, for they are for the ultra wealthy monopolies that exist in the world and when they say they are for the average American they are lying to America.  They do not want to change the rules of the game to enable the average American worker to purchase, to build, their own housing; Hillary and Bill want the masses dependent upon the government for their housing through programs like Section 8, HUD and below market rate non-profit 501c3 organizations that exploit the poor for their own advantage.

Hillary does not want to increase competition in the insurance industry enabling more people to obtain healthcare through their own means and or collective bargaining with their employers; Hillary wants the people dependent upon the government for healthcare so that government can dictate what kind of medicines and treatment people receive.

Hillary and Bill are using the socioeconomic problems of our present to create a big government that will eventually control every aspect of every citizen’s life’ that is not the Land of Liberty which the Founding Fathers created.

If Hillary chooses not to pony up another million dollars to the IRS for the 2014 and 2015 tax years than we will know that she truly does not believe in her tax plan but is using it for some ulterior objective.

Socialism in a nutshell is the plumber that comes back time and again to mop up the puddle from the leaking pipe without ever fixing the leak ensuring a guaranteed job all the while the leak becomes worse and worse over time until the house finally floods.

How Gossip Kills

Audrie Potts did not kill herself because she was sexually assaulted while passed out drunk.

gossip-7Audrie Potts did not kill herself because photos of the assault were taken by some of the boys who assaulted her.

Audrie Potts did not kill herself because the boys shared the photos with others.

Audrie Potts did not kill herself because her entire community was gossiping about the assault and the photos.

Audrie Potts was murdered with gossip by people whose motive was hate.

“I have a reputation for a night I don’t remember.  The whole school is talking about it.  My life is ruined.  The boys who did this can die in a hole for all I care.  I’m in hell.”  Audrie Potts

The victims in the twin towers who jumped to their deaths due to the extreme pain from the smoke and heat were ruled homicides not suicides.

(“In effect they did not jump. They were pushed. Homicide.”)

“At the office of the New York chief medical examiner, a spokesman said this week that they did not consider these people ‘jumpers’…….‘Jumping indicates a choice, and these people did not have that choice,’ she said. ‘That is why the deaths were ruled homicide, because the actions of other people caused them to die”

Just like the victims of 9/11 were pushed by the pain caused by others, Audrie was pushed by the pain caused by others.

“One of Audrie’s assailants, compelled by legal settlement to be interviewed by the filmmakers (who shield his identity with animation), is asked what he’s learned about girls. “There’s a lot of gossip between girls,” he mumbles between “uh”s. “Guys are more laid back and don’t really care.”

1 John 3:15 says that hate is the equivalent of murder.

Gossip was the weapon.  The motive was to cause harm, a malicious intent.  The intent was born from hate.  The perpetrators were everybody that participated in gossiping about Audrie.

That same year that Audrie was assaulted a Maryville, Missouri high school freshman girl, Daisy Coleman,  was also sexually assaulted and video taped much like Audrie.

The evidence was overwhelming against the popular high school football player.

However charges were dropped against the boys accused of assaulting Daisy giving credence that two separate prosecutors were influenced by one of the boys, Matthew Barnett’s, prominence in the community as a star football player and his grandfather’s position as a Missouri state representative.

There are a lot of similarities between Daisy Coleman’s case and that of a teenage girl who was sexually assaulted by well connected community college, De Anza, baseball players in Santa Clara County California in which two separate prosecutors refused to prosecute.  Another case in which prosecutorial discretion allows the well connected to escape accountability.

Instead of supporting Daisy a large segment of the Maryville community gossiped about Daisy; persecuted Daisy and Daisy’s family on behalf of the popular high school football player who assaulted her because Daisy had the courage to seek justice for what was done to her.

“Daisy says she was suspended from the cheerleading squad and incessantly bullied. People, called her “liar,” and  told her she was “asking for it” and would “get what was coming.”

“When she, Daisy, decided to press charges, she and her family were subjected to relentless humiliation via social media. After the prosecutors dropped criminal charges, the public shaming became virulent. As they prepared to move to another city, their house, which was up for sale, was burned to the ground.”

Like Audrie, Daisy was assaulted with gossip; unlike Audrie, Daisy survived the attack.

Gossip is a weapon that is wielded by people for one purpose, to cause harm to others and sometimes it has lethal effects.

gossip-1Both of their stories are detailed in a new documentary, “Audrie & Daisy,” to be released  on Netflix September 23, 2016.

A screening can be viewed at:

The Audrie Pott Foundation & CASA Los Gatos
Los Gatos Theatre
43 N. Santa Cruz Avenue
Los Gatos, CA
September 25, 2016 10:00 am

Trailer: